LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



, . ^^ 

Cliap._^.*:_ 'Copyright No.. 
Shelf..B.C7 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 









BAPTISM 



AND 



FEET- WASHING. 



3Y 

Rev. p. BERGSTRESSER, D. D., 

AUTHOR OF VAIN EXCUSES ANSWERED, WAYNESBORO' DISCUSSION, ETC. 



,'5'^':..o.i,.,,.;/"*<rjA 

liUM 15.? 896/ 



'i'S'a'*'^''^' 



PHILADELPHIA, PA. : 

LUTHERAN PUBLICATION SOCIETY. 

I8y6. 



, \ ' 






Copyright, 1896, 

BY THE 

LUTHERAN PUBLICATION SOCIETY. 



Or Cong k ESS 
WASHINGTON 



PREFACE. 



This work has been undertaken to supply a felt 
want in our Lutheran Church. Ever since " The 
Waynesboro' Discussion," in 1879, of which debate 
only two thousand copies were published, we have 
been solicited for copies, from the East and West, 
and when the discovery was made that the edition 
was exhausted in a short time, some brethren in 
high position in the Church wrote to us, and urged 
us to prepare our arguments, on the various propo- 
sitions discussed, and to publish them in separate 
book-form. The work now issued is an attempt to 
do this. This book is fuller on the propositions dis- 
cussed than the debate, because we had more leisure 
to investigate the subjects. 

Any person of ordinary intelligence can find in 
this work sufficient arguments for all ordinary pur- 
poses to refute those who make a dipping baptism 
essential to salvation, and also to convince them of 
our more beautiful and scriptural mode of baptism 
by pouring or sprinkling, as well as for the refuta- 
tion of those who oppose Infant Baptism. 

On Feet- Washing the treatise is quite full, and 

(3) 



should satisfy any impartial reader that there is no 
such sacrament commanded in the Word of God to 
be practiced in the public assemblies of the Church. 

The work is commended to the prayerful attention 
of the whole Church. 

PETER BERGSTRESSER, 

RocKwooD, Pa. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

PART I. 
THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 

PAGE 

Introduction 7 

CHAPTER I. 
The Definition of Baptism 13 

CHAPTER II. 
John's Baptism . 19 

CHAPTER IIL 
Jesus not Dipped by John 35 

CHAPTER IV. 
Baptizo and Bapto 43 

CHAPTER V. 
Luther no Immersionist 60 

CHAPTER VI. 
Scripture Usage of Baptizo 67 

CHAPTER VTI. 

PI.ACES Where Baptisms were Performed 83 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Baptism in Church History 106 

CHAPTER IX. 
Nature and Design of Baptism 109 

(s) 



6 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

PART II. 

THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

PAGE 

CHAPTER X. 
The Great Commission 125 

CHAPTER XI. 
The Fitness of Chii^dren for Baptism 132 

CHAPTER XII. 

The Apostles and Church History 135 

CHAPTER XIII. 

The Abrahamic Covenant 143 

CHAPTER XIV. 
Objections Answered , . . 157 

PART III. 

FEET-WASHING. 

CHAPTER XV. 

Feet-Washing — not a Sacrament 189 

CHAPTER XVI. 

The Language Employed 195 

CHAPTER XVII. 

The Circumstances Involved 203 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

Feet- Washing a Jewish Custom 209 

CHAPTER XIX. 

The True Date of the Passover 223 

CHAPTER XX. 
John and Synoptists Harmonized 227 



INTRODUCTION. 



This book needs no introduction. The author in- 
forms us in his preface that the book has been born 
of controversy, and conies forth in this new dress 
and enlarged enfoldment at the request of religious 
teachers, East and West, and in answer to a felt need 
in the Church. We have nothing of so comprehen- 
sive a character in the literature of the Church. We 
have some excellent manuals and tracts upon parts 
of the subject comprehended in this work, but no 
single volume so comprehensive in completeness and 
entirety of the subject as " Baptism and Feet-Wash- 
ing." This work is not the child of an hour, but 
bears the marks of years of drudgery. Every para- 
graph exhibits the scholarly research and logical 
arrangement that characterize everything that Doc- 
tor Bergstresser has ever written. It is exhilarating, 
in these days of sham and pretense, to fall in with a 
naturalness and scholarly simplicity that make ob- 
scure things plain and the secrets of scholars com- 
mon property. 

Phillips Brooks, one of the greatest preachers that 
America has ever produced, once said, * ' Some books 
(7) 



8 INTRODUCTION. 

are friends, and bring to us suggestions ; some books 
are teachers, and come to us with systematic and 
well-ordered truth. " If I were to devote myself to 
the piracy of paragraphing, I know of no sentence in 
the English language that so truly characterizes the 
work that has passed my examination on " Baptism 
and Feet- Washing "as, " Some books are teachers, 
and come to us with systematic and well-ordered 
truth." We always value a teacher for his truth. 
It is so with the author ; he has but one story, and 
he tells it consistently from first to last, his enemies 
as his judges. 

The work divides itself very naturally into three 
parts: First, The Mode of Baptism; second, The 
Subjects of Baptism ; and third, Feet- Washing as a 
Sacrament. Part first, as to The Mode of Baptism, 
is an old battle-field, where ecclesiastics have dis- 
played their cleverness all down the centuries. Nat- 
urally we would expect, upon this point, little other 
than the threshing over of old straw ; but the reader 
will not have gone far into the book until he meets a 
delightful surprise of new faces on old truths. The 
new light brought to us upon the mode of Baptism 
is born, not of the dexterous handling of a concord- 
ance or the shrewd compilation of what has already 
been said and written upon the subject, but of schol- 
arly exegesis, lifting into vision with convincing, 
masterly arrangement, passages hitherto omitted in 
the discussion of the mode of Baptism, displaying a 
most profound knowledge of the Word of God. 



^ INTRODUCTION. 9 

When we think of Dr. Dale and the small army of 
" and others " who have so thoroughly discussed 
the mode of Baptism, the tendency is to regard the 
final word on the mode of Baptism as spoken, and 
to turn a deaf ear to anything further. It may be 
well to remember, as suggested by another, that 
* * The world moves now on the principle that every- 
thing thought to be settled and established on im- 
mutable foundations is just ripe for investigation. " 
A very thoughtful reading of part first, The Mode of 
Baptism, fully justifies and verifies the suggestion, 
and at once demands a place and claims a most cor- 
dial and respectful hearing for the author. The 
chapters on the subjects of Baptism and Feet- Wash- 
ing as a sacrament are especially helpful. The 
argument upon Infant Baptism is a marvel in clear- 
ness, and comes to us with a thoroughness of inves- 
tigation that leaves no room for a demurrer. This 
chapter alone should place the book in every Sunday- 
school library in the Lutheran Church, and in the 
hands of every catechumen. 

In part third. Feet- Washing as a Sacrament, we 
come upon hitherto unexplored territory. Rev. 
Prof. C. P. Krauth, D. D., LL.D., whose knowledge 
of books was far beyond that of ordinary men, when 
asked to cite a treatise upon the subject of Feet- 
Washing as a Sacrament, made answer, " I know of 
nothing upon the subject — have never seen nor read 
a treatise upon the subject." Beyond the casual 
reference made by the more scholarly commentators, 



lO INTRODUCTION. 

there is no formal treatise on the subject. To the 
city pastor, who is never called to rub against the 
shrewd sophistries of the quaint assumption of feet- 
washing as a sacrament, this chapter may mean 
little ; but those pastors who are called to meet this 
misreading of the Divine Word will hail this third 
chapter as not only timely, but a downright benefac- 
tion. It is one thing to laugh at a fallacy, but quite 
another to disprove it. This third chapter stands 
out unique, not only from the rest of the volume, 
but from the whole realm of ecclesiastical litera- 
ture, as the first thorough treatise upon the subject. 
It comes as the final word, for it leaves no place for 
an objection. It has even hopelessly divided the 
sect that urges feet-washing as a sacrament. 

This book is good throughout, with not a dry 
chapter in it. Difficult things are made so plain 
that a novice in the study of the great doctrines that 
it elucidates, with it in hand, can pose as a master 
in the discussion of Baptism and Feet-Washing. 

This book will be hailed by hundreds as not only 
an additional emphasis to Baptism as a sacrament, 
but as setting at rest forever all reasonable doubt as 
to its mode and subjects, and consigning to charitable 
forgetfulness the unscriptural assumption of feet- 
washing as a sacrament. This book is what Mon- 
taigne calls " vital and spermatic, not leaving the 
reader what he was ; he shuts the book a richer man. ' ' 
WILLIAM ALFRED SHIPMAN. 

Johnstown, Pa. 



PART L 

THE MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE DEFINITION OF BAPTISM. 

It is in the interest of truth and for the glory of 
God that we undertake a thorough and radical inves- 
tigation of the Mode of Christian Baptism, which 
must be learned from the definition of the word, 
from its use in the sacred Scriptures, and from the 
nature and design of the sacrament. 

The investigation is not to be conducted as though 
we had any doubts of the validity of our baptism, or 
as though we had not yet entered into the temple of 
truth; but it is for the purpose of unveiling the 
glory of the truth, which we have discovered on this 
important subject, that all who hear and love the 
truth may be fully persuaded and established in it. 
This we are sure will be the case with all persons 
who come to the investigation of this subject with 
unprejudiced minds; for the Spirit of truth will 
guide them into all truth. As St. John says : * * But 
the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth 

(13) 



14 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: 
but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, 
and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught 
you, ye shall abide in Him," i John ii. 27. That is, 
if we have discovered the fundamental principle of 
truth, we shall be able to unfold this whole subject 
clearly, logically and scripturally, to the minds of 
all unprejudiced persons. But if we come to the in- 
vestigation of any subject with prejudiced minds, 
enlisted under some sectarian shiboleth, we will not 
be able to discern truth from error. On this point a 
distinguished writer has said : ' * Let us agree to find 
out the truth, adhering closely to Scripture, carefully 
endeavoring to detect the cause of error, the first lie, 
which vitiates all the subsequent reasoning, and then 
it cannot be difficult for an unprejudiced mind to 
ascertain the truth," Herein lies good advice for 
every lover of the truth ; and we will endeavor, as 
^ar as in us is, to follow it. 

The great fundamental error, under which the 
whole Baptist system is laboring, consists in the 
erroneous meaning which it attaches to the Greek 
word baptizo^ defining it as a definite act, to dip. On 
the heels of this error follow a great many others, 
some of which we may have occasion to point out in 
this discussion. 

It appears from what St. Paul says in i Cor. i. 17, 
' ' For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach 
the gospel, ' ' that there are some things, both in the 
Bible and also in nature, which are more important 



THE DEFINITION OF BAPTISM. I5 

than others. For instance, the finger-board point- 
ing out the road to travelers is important ; but the 
road itself is more important. The signs above your 
stores are important ; but the goods in your stores 
are much more important. What benefit the sign 
or finger-board, if the goods be wanting or the road 
obstructed? So it is with baptism and the gospel. 
He that believeth not, though he be baptized, shall 
be damned. Baptism as a symbol of grace is im- 
portant ; but the preaching of the gospel, by which 
faith is received, is more important. We do not say 
that grace does not accompany baptism; but St. 
Paul evidently laid more stress on the inner than on 
the outer, more on preaching the gospel than on 
preaching baptism, the symbol of grace. Much 
more would St. Paul have protested against preach- 
ing about the mode of baptism to the neglect of 
preaching the gospel ; turning the mode of baptism 
into a divine commandment, and teaching for doc- 
trines the commandments of men. Let us therefore 
follow the spirit of St. Paul, our apostle, the apostle 
of the Gentiles. 

That is therefore wrong preaching which gives 
more prominence to the outer sign than to the inner 
grace ; that has more to say about the mode of bap- 
tism, the washing of feet as a religious ceremony, 
the shape of the hat or cap, the holy kiss, and other 
traditional rudiraents, than about * * the weightier 
matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith." 
Matt, xxiii. 23. 



l6 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

But yet it is necessary for the minister of the Word 
to instruct his people in the doctrines of the sacra- 
ments, which are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

In the discussion of the mode of Christian Bap- 
tism, we will consider in regular order the position 
of our Baptist friends, who are forever talking and 
preaching of the baptism of adults by dipping. The 
general position taken by Baptists, whether Tunkers, 
Campbellites, Millerites, or all the other numerous 
and diversified orders into which the Baptist persua- 
sion is divided, may be summed up in the following 
particulars: '* That Christian baptism is dipping, 
immersion, overwhelming, plunging. That bap- 
tism, both in its primary and secondary meaning, 
expresses dipping, and nothing else. Dipping is 
baptism, and baptism is dipping Dipping only is 
baptism. ' ' That this is a fair statement of the Bap- 
tist position can be proved by opening any of their 
standard works on the subject. 

We here lay down the plain proposition that the 
words of the Bible must be interpreted according to 
the meaning which the sacred writers attach to them. 
When we read a book, and desire to understand the 
author, we must interpret his words by the evident 
sense in which he employs them. We are not per- 
mitted to read obsolete meanings into his words, 
when he uses them in another well-received sense. 
So with the word baptizo. It has two meanings, a 
classical and a scriptural. We must not read the 
classical into the scriptural, or the scriptural into the 



THE DEFINITION OF BAPTISM. 1 7 

classical ; the primary into the secondary, or the sec- 
ondary into the primary. In the old classics baptizo 
means to sink something to the bottom of some fluid 
or element, and to leave it there, there being noth- 
ing in the original word to bring up that which was 
sunk to the bottom. Of this use of the word exam- 
ples will be furnished further on. 

There is a Greek word which signifies this double 
action, which is bapto^ but bapto is never used in any 
passage of Scripture where the ordinance of baptism 
is mentioned. The word for the sacrament of bap- 
tism is always baptizo. With the word dip our Bap- 
tist friends also frequently associate the words 
immerse^ plunge^ overwhelm^ etc., as if these were 
synonymous with dip and explanatory of baptizo. 
This is done to cover up the weakness of their posi- 
tion in asserting that the Greek word baptizo^ 
throughout all the Greek classics and the Bible, 
means dippings and nothing else. That this is a fair 
statement of the Baptist position can be proved by 
opening any of their standard works on the subject. 
In order to see this charge fully developed and 
proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, turn to James 
W. Dale, D. D., on Classic Baptism, a work which 
cannot be too highly estimated for settling forever 
this disputed word. 

Now, before entering upon the discussion of this 
illogical and unscriptural position, which confounds 
baptizo with bapto^ we will say once for all, that we 
do not find fault with our Baptist friends for choos- 



1 8 BAPTISM AND FEET- WASHING. 

ing to perform their baptism by dipping. This is a 
liberty of which we do not wish to deprive them. 
But the arrogant assumption with which it is sought 
to brand our baptism as not valid but profane, and 
the unwarrantable exclusiveness of denying us a 
place in the visible Church, or any good hope of 
heaven, we cannot give place to by subjection — no, 
not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel may 
continue with us. We stand therefore entirely on the 
defensive in this discussion, and demand the proof, 
endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the 
bond of peace. But we fear that the unity of the 
faith can never be secured on the Baptist basis, un- 
less we all become immersionists against our honest 
convictions. We hold firmly to the Sacrament of 
Baptism, but administer it by affusion or sprinkling. 



CHAPTER II. 



JOHN S BAPTISM. 



Baptists endeavor to prove their position, that 
Baptism is dipping, and nothing else, by John's Bap- 
tism. The passages of Scripture mostly relied on 
are these : * * John did baptize in the wilderness, and 
preach the baptism of repentance for the remission 
of sins. And there went out unto him all the land 
of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all bap- 
tized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their 
sins," Mark i. 4, 5. ** And were baptized of him in 
Jordan," Matt. iii. 6, 

Suppose we should admit, for the sake of argu- 
ment, that John did dip in the river of Jordan, how 
would that prove that Christian Baptism is dipping, 
and nothing else? For if this was Christian Baptism, 
then John the Baptist, not Christ, instituted Chris- 
tian Baptism. Who then did institute Christian 
Baptism? Christ instituted Christian Baptism, when 
he said to his disciples : " Go ye therefore, and make 
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you," Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 

(19) 



20 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

The idea of Christian Baptism is poorly illustrated 
by putting a person into water and drawing him out ; 
for ritual Baptism is a symbol agency, and not an 
enveloping element. Christian Baptism is a symbol 
of grace. The symbol is to be applied to the sub- 
ject, and not the subject to the symbol element. 
The symbol is pure water, applied to the subject in 
the name of the Triune God, and the grace thus 
symbolized is the Holy Ghost, by whom alone we are 
brought into a permanently saved state or condition. 
As the Holy Spirit is applied to the subject, so also 
ought the water to be applied. * * For by one Spirit 
are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews 
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have 
been all made to drink into one Spirit," i Cor. xii. 13. 

Such baptism is certainly not clearly illustrated by 
the act of dippings putting one into this body, which 
is Christ, and withdrawing; but by Christian Bap- 
tism we are put into a permanent condition or state 
in Christ, which is never to be disturbed. Dipping 
does not illustrate a permanent state. But Christian 
Baptism is a permanent state of rest in Christ ; * * for 
we who have believed do enter into his rest, ' ' Heb. 
iv. 3. The Holy Spirit does not dip us into Christ, 
put into and withdrawn, but when He baptizes us 
into Christ, He puts us into a permanently saved con- 
dition, putting His laws into our hearts, and writing 
them in our minds, by which we are enabled to love 
and serve God in Christian liberty. Ritual Baptism 
only symbolizes this glorious condition ; but it is the 



JOHN S BAPTISM. 21 

Holy spirit who pours the pure water of life into the 
soul. A dipping Baptism does not at all illustrate 
this idea, and therefore it is a worthless symbol, and 
never used in the Scriptures, because it leads the 
soul away from the true idea of Christian Baptism, 
making it to consist in the mere act or mode of its 
administration . 

Christian Baptism therefore consists in the appli- 
cation of water to a subject in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ac- 
cording to the divine command, as a symbol of 
spiritual purification, and as a token of Christian 
privileges. It is the sacrament of initiation into the 
visible church. The outer form of Baptism was not 
new when even Christian Baptism was introduced. 
It was connected with former Jewish ceremonies, as 
we shall see in the discussion of our subject. In the 
Old Testament there were washings and purifyings, 
which in the New Testament are called baptisms; 
and John the Baptist made use of water-baptism as a 
symbol of repentance and the remission of sins. 
That is, all who promised to repent of their sins, and 
to look to the Messiah for the remission of sins, John 
baptized with water. But Christ implanted in this 
ordinance a new signification, which is expressed in 
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. By 
Christian Baptism we are to be received into fellow- 
ship with the Triune God. John's Baptism was 
therefore only a preparation for Christan Baptism. 

This is evident from the fact that John's disciple^ 



22 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

were re-baptized with Christian Baptism. If * ' all 
the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem ' ' were bap- 
tized by John, it is highly probable that many of the 
* * three thousand, ' ' who were baptized with Chris- 
tian Baptism on the day of Pentecost, had been 
among John's disciples. 

But what shall we say of the twelve disciples of 
John, who were rebaptized by the order of St. Paul at 
Ephesus? Paul asked them, " Have ye received the 
Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto 
him, we have not so much as heard whether there 
be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto 
what then were ye baptized? And they said. Unto 
John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily bap- 
tized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto 
the people, that they should believe on Him which 
should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 
When they heard this, they were baptized in the 
name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid 
his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on 
them," Acts xix. i-6. Now, for what was this 
Scripture given to us, but to teach us that John's 
baptism was not Christian Baptism, and that the 
principal thing in baptism is not much or little 
water, but the name of the Lord Jesus and the gift 
of the Holy Ghost? You will therefore see clearly 
that, if John's baptism was even performed by dip- 
ping, it is no proof that Christian Baptism is dipping, 
and nothing else; for John's baptism was only a 
preparation for Christian Baptism. And not neces- 



JOHN S BAPTISM. 23 

sarily that; for there is no evidence that all the 
apostles were baptized with John's baptism. 

But John himself makes a distinction between his 
baptism and that of which Christ should be the 
author. Let us read John's words: "And I knew 
Him not : biit He that sent me to baptize with water, 
the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see 
the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the 
same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, ' ' 
John i. ^^. See also Matt. iii. 13-17. The Spirit 
descended like a dove, and remained on Jesus. But 
fhe descent of a dove is like water poured out of a 
hand, or pitcher, or pump, upon some object. 
Should not the sign correspond with the thing signi- 
fied? So forcibly did this point impress itself on the 
mind of Menno Simonis, the founder of the Menno- 
nite church, that the greater part of that denomina- 
tion have abandoned the practice of baptizing by 
dipping, and have introduced in its place the more 
scriptural, convenient, and beautiful mode of baptiz- 
ing by pouring. 

But we do not admit, by a good deal, that John's . 
baptism was performed even by dipping ; for it can 
be proved neither by the language employed in the 
transaction nor by history or tradition. The same 
quotation that says, ** John baptized in the river Jor- 
dan," says also, ** He baptized in the wilderness." 
If the former phrase means * ' to dip into the water 
of Jordan^ ' ' then the latter also means ' * to dip into 
the sand of the wilderness ;'' but if the latter means 



24 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHlNG. 

the locality where John was baptizing, then the for- 
mer also means locality. But that both phrases, 
* * in the wilderness ' ' and ' * in the Jordan^ ' ' mean 
locality, is evident to all those who are acquainted 
with the topography of the Jordan. The river Jor- 
dan has two banks on each side. The first, or inner 
banky is that of the river in its natural state ; and 
the second, or outer one, about the eighth of a mile 
distant, is its bank when it overflows. This overflow- 
ing is occasioned by the melting of snows on Leba- 
non and Hermon, in March and April. During the 
rest of the year, therefore, the river is in its natural 
state, between the inner banks, while between the 
inner and outer banks there is a wide space of rich 
pasture land, which afforded an excellent locality for 
the vast multitudes that frequented John's preach- 
ing. This corresponds with St. Luke's account of 
the matter ; * * The word of God came unto John the 
son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came 
into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the 
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins ; as 
it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the 
prophet, saying, * * The voice of one crying in the wil- 
derness. Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His 
paths straight, " Luke iii. 3, 4. John was therefore 
in the Jordan land, not for the purpose of dipping 
the people into water, but that there he might have 
an excellent locality to preach the baptism of repent- 
ance ; for the word, river, does not only include its 
water, but also its banks and its channel. 



JOHN S BAPTISM. 2$ 

While no Baptist was ever known to base an argu- 
ment for dipping on the Scripture statement that 
John was baptizing ** m the wilderness^'' " in Beth- 
any, " "in Enon, ' ' yet the same identical form of 
statement, " in the Jordan," is made the basis of a 
universal argument for dipping into, covering over 
with water ^ although intelligent friends of the dip- 
ping theory admit that " in the Jordan " does as 
truly and as absolutely express locality as does * * in 
the wilderness." By what authority, then, is the 
phrase, ' ' in the Jordan, ' ' a locality, metamorphosed 
into * * in the water, ' ' which is no locality ; for John 
could not have his home in the water of Jordan, but 
he could, and he had, his home between the inner 
and the outer banks during the season he preached 
there his repentance baptism, which required a pen- 
itent state of mind. It was not a ritual baptism that 
he preached, but a repentance baptism, a penitent 
state of mind and heart, in which condition alone 
they could receive the forgiveness of their sins by 
believing on the Lamb of God, who was already, un- 
consciously to them, standing among them. There is 
therefore a great gulf separating John's position in 
relation to the river Jordan from the Baptist posi- 
tion. Baptists leave their preaching places, and 
seek out a river in whose waters they may dip by 
" walking in to a convenient depth, " and by dipping 
the upper part of the body. There is not one word 
of any such doing in all the history of John's ministry. 
Where John preached, there he baptized. When he 



20 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

preached in the wilderness, he baptized in the wil- 
derness. When he preached in Bethany, he bap- 
tized in Bethany. When he preached in Enon, he 
baptized in Enon. When he preached in the Jordan 
land, he baptized in the Jordan land. 

Olshausen says: " The wilderness is spoken of as 
the place where John preached, which is not to be 
understood, of course, as literally void of men, but 
rather as pasture grounds. But in the fact that 
John preached in the wilderness and not in towns, 
we discover the particular character of this witness 
of the truth. It belongs to John's character to flee 
from men and to preach to those that seek him; 
while the Redeemer Himself seeks men. The wil- 
derness of Judea bordered on the Jordan and the 
Dead Sea. ' ' Olshausen thinks that the ministry and 
the places of John's ministry have some other char- 
acteristics than that of dipping and its conveniences. 
John's wilderness home, his camel's hair apparel, his 
locust food, his repentance preaching, all told of the 
severity of the law, to whose dispensation he still 
belonged, and of preparation for the welcome recep- 
tion of grace and truth by Jesus Christ. 

In view of what has now been said about the local- 
ity of * * the Jordan, ' ' the accounts given by Mat- 
thew and Mark of the baptism of Jesus by John, can 
be more easily understood : ' ' Jesus came from Gali- 
lee to the Jordan, to be baptized of him, ' ' Matt. iii. 
13. " And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus 
came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of 



JOHN S BAPTISM. 2^ 

John in Jordan/' Mark i. 9. Jesus came from the 
land of Galilee into the land of Jordan, from one 
locality to another, where John preached the bap- 
tism of repentance. 

But what is repentance? This we must know in 
order to learn what John preached. John designed 
by his preaching to awaken in his hearers those feel- 
ings of sorrow and remorse which are excited in a 
sinner by a knowledge of his sinfulness and danger. 
By the law is the knowledge of sin. John was a 
preacher of the law. This was his mission. The 
age in which he lived was very corrupt. He was 
the man for the times. He was a truly great man. 
He was so proclaimed by the Lord Himself. John 
preached the law to awaken his hearers to repent- 
ance. The way of salvation is through the Law into 
the Gospel. " For I through the law am dead to 
the law, that I might live unto God," Gal. ii. 19. 
The law serves the gospel. The law is our school- 
master to bring us to Christ. The law furnishes the 
moral discipline to be passed through to Christian 
liberty. Man in his fallen state is under the control 
of sin, and not under the control of holiness. Re- 
generation is the radical change of this governing 
disposition of following sin in preference to holiness 
and righteousness. * ' For godly sorrow worketh re- 
pentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the 
sorrow of the world worketh death," 2 Cor. vii. 10. 
This shows that repentance is a changed condition 
of man's mind. This is what John preached. He 



28 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

endeavored by his preaching to change the people's 
minds, and to turn them to the Lord. He did not 
preach a dipping baptism ; but he preached the bap- 
tism of repentance into the remission of sins. Or, 
in other words, he preached in order to bring about 
a condition of repentance in the minds of his hearers, 
and to lead them to the coming Messiah for the re- 
mission of their sins. They did not find the forgive- 
ness of their sins in their repentance and in their 
baptism, but by these means they were brought into 
a condition to seek and find forgiveness by faith in 
the Lamb of God. For John cried and said, ** Be- 
hold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of 
the world," John i. 29. But is godly sorrow an act 
or a condition of soul.^ It is a condition of soul, in 
which faith alone can spring up, by which we are 
enabled to lay hold of Christ and salvation. The 
acts of the soul proceed from the will, which, in the 
impenitent sinner, is inclined to evil, and is turned 
from sin only when the heart is made sorrowful and 
sad by contemplating its sinfulness. This is the pov- 
erty of spirit to which Jesus alludes in His Sermon on 
the Mount, where He says : * * Blessed are the poor in 
spirit : for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, ' ' Matt. 

When the Prodigal Son had * * come to himself, ' ' 
he said: ** How many hired servants of my father's 
have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with 
hunger!" Here were the feelings of sorrow and re- 
morse awakened in his heart, as he contemplated his 



JOHN S BAPTISM. 29 

sinfulness and danger. AVe have in this a touch of 
the deepest nature, drawn by the pen of inspiration ; 
for there is nothing which so causes the sinner to 
feel the discord which he has introduced into his 
inner being by his sins, as to compare himself with 
all things around him and beneath him. It was not 
until his heart had received the repentance baptism 
that the Prodigal said : " I will arise and go to my 
Father." 

But this was the very state or condition of mind 
into which John the Baptist labored by his preaching 
and the operations of the Holy Spirit to bring his 
hearers; he preached the baptism of repentance, 
and had nothing to say about a ritual baptism, much 
less about a dipping into water baptism. This he 
distinctly announced to the vast multitudes that 
came to hear him, when he said: " I indeed bap- 
tize you with water unto repentance (Greek, into 
repentance)^'" Matt. iii. ii. Again: "John verily 
baptized with the baptism of repentance (Greek, 
baptized the baptism of repentance)^'" Acts xix. 4. 
John baptized those who were brought into the right 
condition of mind and heart to look to the Messiah 
for redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 

This is further evident from the nature of John's 
baptism, which was a symbol of purification, which 
was done by sprinkling or pouring. " Then there 
arose a question between some of John's disciples 
and the Jews about purifying," John iii. 25. The 
priests and the Levites of Jerusalem also asked John, 



30 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

" Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that 
Christ?" That is, " Why purifiest thou then, if thou 
be not that Christ?" John answered them, *' I bap- 
tize with water : that is, "* I purify with water, ' but 
there standeth one among you, whom ye know not. ' ' 
As though he would say : " I purify you ceremoni- 
ally with water, but He shall purify you with the 
Holy Ghost." 

With this idea of baptism as a symbol of spiritual 
purification, both the Jews and Gentiles, in those 
days, were quite familiar. It is notorious that both 
Jews and Gentiles attached a specifical purifying 
value to running water. Thus the Roman high priest 
addressed the Sabine, " What are you about to do, O 
stranger ? Would you sacrifice impurely to Diana ? 
Sprinkle yourself first with the living stream. The 
Tiber flows before you in the bottom of the valley. ' ' 

Philo the Jew says, " It is the custom of nearly all 
others to sprinkle for purification with pure water; 
many with that of the sea, some with that of rivers, 
and some with that -of vessels they had drawn up 
from wells." 

The Old Testamient required the use of running 
or living' water for religious purification. " And he 
shall dip them in the running water and sprinkle the 
house seven times: and he shall cleanse the house 
with the blood of the bird, and with the running 
water," Lev. xiv. 51, 52. 

The Gentile and the Jews alike went to the flow- 
ing stream, not because of the quantity of water to 



JOHN S BAPTISM. 3I 

be found there, but because of its quality or charac- 
ter. They sought for running, living, therefore 
pure, water, and having found this, so much as 
would suffice for a sprinkling or pouring was a 
quantity sufficient for them. The custc^m of resort- 
ing to rivers, therefore, for religious purification, 
because of the greater purifying power of running 
water, is a custom of Eastern origin, and is continued 
to the present day. The Rev. Dr. Jamieson says, 
•* The usual mode of bathing by the Hindoos is by 
pouring water over their persons from a vessel 
called lota^ when they stand on the bank of a river. 
In washing hands both Hindoos and Mohammedans 
always pour water on them. They say that to dip 
them into water defiles the water, and thus the more 
you wash the more unclean you are. ' ' 

Now, did John baptize by dipping or by sprink- 
ling? He did not baptize by dipping, but by sprink- 
ling or pouring, for the following reasons : 

I. John himself says that he baptized with water. 

* * I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, ' ' 
Matt. iii. ii. " With water ^'* in the original Greek, 
is in the dative case, which shows the instrument 
with which anything is done. ' ' I drive a nail with 
a hammer. " "I sweep the room with a broom. ' ' 

* * I plow the field with a plow. " "I baptize with 
water. ' ' All these show the modes or instruments 
with which the things are accomplished. The water, 
according to John's language, was applied to the 
person, and not the person to the water. 



32 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

2. Jesus uses the same language with regard to 
John's baptism, and makes our position still stronger. 
Jesus says to His apostles : * * John truly baptized with 
water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost 
not many d^s hence," Acts i. 5. This language of 
Jesus is in the precise form. " With water ^'^ in 
both cases, is the instrumental dative. Christ even 
omits the preposition before the dative, which estab- 
lishes our position beyond the shadow of a doubt. 

3. But St. Peter uses the same language in refer- 
ence to John's baptism, which from the circum- 
stances in the case is still stronger testimony in our 
favor. The passage is found in his defense before 
* ' those of the circumcision, ' ' for having entered into 
the house of Cornelius, a Gentile, and preached the 
gospel. * * As I began to speak, ' ' he said, ' ' the Holy 
Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then 
remembered I the word of the Lord, how that He 
said, John indeed baptized with water ; but ye shall 
be baptized with the Holy Ghost," Acts xi. 15, 16. 
How did this event remind St. Peter of John's mode 
of baptism? It was by seeing the Holy Ghost fall 
upon his hearers, as on the day of Pentecost. If 
there was no resemblance between the two baptisms, 
how came the mind of the apostle to be refreshed 
with what he saw? What then did he see? He saw 
the pouring down of the Holy Spirit. Substitute dip 
for pour in the passage : * ' John indeed dipped you 
with water; but ye shall be dipped with the Holy 
Ghost. Shocking abuse of language and prmciple ! 



JOHN S BAPTISM. 33 

4. Moreover, that John's baptism was by sprink- 
ling or pouring, and not by dipping, we draw from 
the fact that he was a teacher of the law of Moses, 
which required sprinkling or pouring for ceremonial 
purification. Malachi closed his book with these 
solemn words : * ' Remember ye the law of Moses my 
servant, which I commanded you in Horeb for all 
Israel, with the statutes and judgments. " As if he 
would say : * * You are not now to expect any further 
succession of prophets, nor indeed any other prophet 
till the Messiah and His Forerunner, Therefore let 
your chief care till then be to observe the institutions 
and obey the precepts which Moses has given you in 
the law, as preparatory to the full revelation of the 
gospel." The prophet continues: "Behold, I will 
send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of 
the great and dreadful day of the Lord : and he shall 
turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the 
heart of the children to the fathers, lest I come and 
smite the earth with a curse. ' ' Jesus said that John 
was the Elijah who was to come. And the angel 
Gabriel said to Zacharias, the father of John the 
Baptist, before John was born : * ' Many of the chil- 
dren of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 
And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power 
of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the 
children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the 
just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. ' ' 
This proves that John was a teacher of the law, and 
still belonged to the Old Testament dispensation. 
3 



34 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

What, then, was the mode of consecration accord- 
ing* to the Law? Was it not by sprinkling or pour- 
ing? In Numbers viii. 6, 7, we read: "Take the 
Levites from among the children of Israel, and 
cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, 
to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon 
them." Of the Messiah it is said: " So shall he 
sprinkle many nations," Is. lii. 15. And in Ezek. 
xxxvi. 25, " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, 
and from all your idols will I cleanse you. ' ' Conse- 
cration in the Old Testament was therefore done by 
sprinkling or pouring ; and as John was a teacher of 
the Law, and had to fulfil all righteousness, and as 
he was the Forerunner of the Messiah who was * * to 
sprinkle many nations, ' ' we conclude that his mode 
of baptism was by sprinkling or pouring. 



CHAPTER HI. 

JESUS NOT DIPPED BY JOHN. 

Matt. iii. 13-17 says: " Then cometh Jesus from 
Galilee to Jordan unto John (to Jordan land, where 
John had his home for the time being) to be bap- 
tized of him. But John forbade Him, saying, I have 
need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 
And Jesus answering said unto him. Suffer it to be 
so now : for thus it becometh us to fulfil all right- 
eousness. Then he suffered Him. ' ' From this we 
gather that neither John, as the Forerunner, nor 
Jesus, as the Messiah, could depart from the teach- 
ings of the Law of consecration. In addition to 
which Jesus says in His Sermon on the Mount: 
' ' Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or 
the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to ful- 
fil," Matt. V. 17, 18. 

What then was the required law of purification 
which John and Jesus v/ere bound to fulfil? The 
purifications were for the most part performed with 
water, sometimes with oil (Ex. xxx. 26-29; Lev. viii. 
10, 11); and sometimes with blood (Heb. ix. 19-22). 
The w^ater of purification was to be drawn from a 
spring or running stream, and was either pure or 

(35) 



30 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

mixed with blood (Heb. ix. 13, 14), or with the ashes 
of a red heifer. For preparing these ashes, a heifer 
of a red color was burnt with great solemnity. As 
all the people were to be interested in it, the victim 
was to be provided at their charge. This Jewish 
rite certainly had a reference to things done under 
the gospel, as St. Paul has remarked in his Epistle 
to the Hebrews, where he says: " For if the blood 
of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer, 
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying 
of the flesh how much more shall the blood of 
Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered him- 
self without spot to God, purge our conscience from 
dead works to serve the living God?" Heb. ix. 13, 14. 
Paul makes use of the same thought in his Epistle to 
the Ephesians, where he says: " Husbands, love 
your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and 
gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and 
cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 
that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, 
not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but 
that it should be holy and without blemish. ' ' 

Let it be remembered that it behooved Jesus and 
John to fulfil all righteousness. We have already 
considered the relation which John sustained to the 
Law. Let us next take up that of Jesus. Right- 
eousness means conformity to the Divine Law. 

Where, then, in the Old Testament, is the law 
which required Jesus to be baptized? It is not found 
in the Ten Commandments, which He fulfilled to the 



JESUS NOT DIPPED BY JOHN. 37 

very jot and tittle. But it behooved Him to fulfil 
* * all righteousness. ' ' He had to fulfil the law of 
consecration, appertaining to the priesthood. Jesus 
is our High Priest, not after the order of Aaron, but 
a priest after the order of Melchisedec. As our 
High Priest, it was necessary that Christ should fulfil 
all the law pertaining to His office ; not in the shadow, 
but in the substance. " For Christ is not entered 
into the holy places made with hands, which are the 
figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to 
appear in the presence of God for us." These 
points St. Paul clearly sets forth in his Epistle to the 
Hebrews. " Wherefore in all things it behooved 
Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He 
might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in 
things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for 
the sins of the people," Heb. ii. 17. "Wherefore, 
holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, 
consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profes- 
sion, Christ Jesus," Heb. iii. i. *' Seeing then that 
we have a great High Priest, that is passed into the 
heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our 
profession. For we have not a High Priest which 
cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmi- 
ties ; but was in all points tempted like as we are, 
yet without sin," Heb. iv. 14, 15. See further, in 
this same line, Heb. v. i-io; vii. 1-28; viii. 1-13; 
ix. 1-25; X. 1-22. 

What, therefore, was the law of the priests? 
I. They could not officiate as priests, or ministers of 



38 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

religion, until they were thirty years of age. In 
proof of this we have Numbers iv. 23, " From thirty 
years old and upward until fifty years old shalt thou 
number them; all that enter in to perform the 
service, to do the work in the tabernacle of the con- 
gregation. " See also verses 30, 35, 39, 43, 47, of the 
same chapter. This is clear. 

St. Luke tells us that when Jesus was about thirty 
years of age, He was baptized, and began His min- 
istry. Why was not Jesus baptized sooner? Why 
did He wait until He was thirty years of age before 
He entered on his office as priest? The law re- 
quired it. 

2. Having waited to the legal age. He must be set 
apart, or consecrated, to His ministry. What was 
the law on this subject? In Numbers viii. 7, " And 
thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: 
Sprinkle water of purifying upon them. ' ' But this 
is not all. In Ex. xix. 7, we read: '* Then shalt 
thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his 
head." Again, in Ex. xxx. 25, we read: " And thou 
shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment 
compounded after the art of the apothecary : it shall 
be a holy anointing oil. ' ' Christ is the anointed one. 
St. Peter preached to Cornelius : * ' How God anointed 
Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with 
power: who went about doing good, and healing all 
that were oppressed of the devil : for God was with 
Him." He was baptized with water and the Holy 
Ghost. These two elements, water and the Holy 



JESUS NOT DIPPED BY JOHN. 39 

Ghost, were applied, one like the other. If Jesus 
was baptized with the Holy Ghost, Ke was also bap- 
tized with water. You might just as well say He was 
dipped in oil as to say He was dipped in water. 

It is then settled by the law and the prophets that 
John did not dip Jesus in water. But if he baptized 
Jesus by sprinkling or pouring according to the law, 
why should he baptize others by a different mode? 
Was it lawful for him to baptize them in any other 
manner or mode than by sprinkling or pouring? If 
so, where is the law that gave him permission? To 
the law and to the testimony ! 

Jesus therefore might have stood at the brink of 
the river, there being no evidence to the contrary 
from the Greek text, or He might have stood a little 
way in the water, and been baptized by sprinkling 
or pouring. For in the Catacombs of Rome, into 
which the early Christians were driven by persecu- 
tion, there are elaborate paintings, and in one of 
these paintings, found in the cemetery of Pontianus, 
is a representation of our Lord's baptism. In the 
painting the Lord is portrayed as standing in the 
water, up to His waist, with a halo about His head, , 
the dove descending from heaven, and John the 
Baptist standing on the bank of the Jordan with his 
right hand on Christ's head, and holding a hyssop 
branch in his left. This is stronger evidence that 
Jesus was baptized by sprinkling or pouring than 
that He was baptized by dipping. It looks very much 
like the Jewish mode of dedication. " For when 



40 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

Moses had spoken every precept to all the people 
according to the law, he took the blood of calves and 
of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, 
and sprinkled both the book and all the people, say- 
ing. This is the blood of the testament which God 
hath enjoined unto you," Heb. ix. 19, 20. 

This painting in the cemetery of Pontianus and 
the Hindoo use of the lota^ remind us of a very strong 
argument deduced from the language of the Fore- 
runner in John iii. 34, * * For he whom God hath sent 
speaketh the words of God : for God giveth not the 
Spirit by measure (ek metrou^ out of a measure) unto 
him." The argument is this. Other ancient pic- 
tures represent John as baptizing by pouring water 
** out of a measure " (a vessel resembling a shell), 
and as suggested by this and in contrast with it, that 
the Lord Jesus is baptized with the Holy Ghost, not 
* ' out of a measure, ' ' but immeasurably. 

Moreover, it would have been physically impos- 
sible for John in his short ministry to have baptized 
by dipping the vast multitudes that came to his bap- 
tism ; and yet it is said that they were all baptized 
by himself. Matt. iii. 6, " And were baptized of 
him. ' ' 

But Jesus Himself tells us, as has already been in- 
timated, how John baptized. He certainly knew, 
and His testimony is conclusive. Here are His own 
words: ** John truly baptized with water; but ye 
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
days hence," Acts i. 5. You perceive that Jesus 



JESUS NOT DIPPED BY JOHN. 41 

says, * * John truly baptized with water ' ' — not in 
water, but with water; applying- the element to the 
subject, not the subject to the element. It will not 
do to translate this in water ; for the original hudati, 
water ^ is the dative of instrument without a preposi- 
tion. You could say, * ' I drive a nail with a ham- 
mer, " but not i7t a hammer, and convey the same 
idea. 

Suppose we substitute for baptized and with^ the 
words dipped and in^ and let us see how it will read, 
In the last text quoted. Thus: " For John truly 
dipped in water ; but ye shall be dipped in the Holy 
Ghost." But the disciples were not dipped in the 
Holy Ghost ; for He was poured out upon them, ac- 
cording to the prediction of the prophet Joel. 

Jesus was also baptized by John with water in 
order to give validity or sanction to John's baptism 
as being divine and for a specific purpose, which 
was to cease, and which did cease with the death of 
John. Look at (compare) this verse : ' * And I knew 
Him not : but that He should be made manifest to 
Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. ' ' 
These are the words of John, who well understood 
his mission. He said: " I am the voice of one cry- 
ing in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the 
Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. ' ' Again, * * He 
must increase, but I must decrease." Christ also 
made His baptism by John the occasion for entering 
on His own blessed mission. As High Priest of the 
Church of God, He was consecrated first by baptism, 



42 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

then by the divine unction, the Holy Ghost, and lastly 
by the sacrifice of Himself. (Ex. xxix. 4; Ex. xl. 
12-15; Lev. viii. 1-30; Heb. x. 10.) Thus in His 
own language He * ' fulfilled all righteousness. ' ' He 
was not baptized like others to repentance for the 
remission of sins ; for He was without sin, and He 
was the Christ to whom the people were exhorted by 
John to look for the remission of sins. 

In Christ's baptism we have also an explanation 
of John iv. 2. For the same reason that He was 
baptized by John, He permitted His own disciples, 
some of whom had formerly been John's disciples, to 
baptize the people unto repentance for the remission 
of sins. This was essentially John's baptism; for 
Christian baptism was not yet instituted, Christ hav- 
ing been not yet glorified. 



CHAPTER IV. 



BAPTIZO AND BAPTO. 



Having now disposed of John's baptism, and hav- 
ing found no ground for the assertion that it was 
performed by dipping and nothing else, and having 
showed that it was not Christian baptism at any rate, 
and that Jesus was not dipped, we will next investi- 
gate more minutely the definitions of baptizo and 
bapto^ which our Baptist friends say mean dip and 
nothing else, and that therefore there is no valid 
baptism but that which is administered by dipping 
the candidate in water and drawing him out again. 
Baptist writers, however, do not agree among them- 
selves in their definition of baptizo^ neither do they 
harmonize in their opinions as to the relation which 
bapto sustains to baptizo. Neither do they harmon- 
ize in their practice. As long therefore as they can- 
not harmonize their own teachings in respect to 
these much-disputed words, nor agree in their prac- 
tice, they can hardly blame us; but they should 
rather thank us for pointing out the radical error 
under which they are laboring. We regard our work 
therefore in this direction as eminently serving the 
cause of truth, both in establishing our own people 
(43) 



44 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

in the true faith concerning baptism, as also in de- 
livering our Baptist friends from their fundamental 
error, and in setting them in better harmony with 
the great body of the Christian church. It is to be 
hoped therefore that all will give our production a 
thorough and impartial examination. 

Lest any one might doubt the want of harmony 
among Baptist writers on these important words, 
baptizo and bapto, we will give a few extracts from 
their writings, as furnished by James W. Dale, D. D. 

Roger Williams says : * * Baptizo means to dip^ and 
nothing but dip. ' ' 

Dr. Gale: ** Dipping only is baptism." 

Abraham Booth: " The primary sense of baptizo 
is to dip. ' ' 

Dr. Cox: '' The idea of dipping is in every in- 
stance. " Again, "Plunging is the unquestionable, 
settled, and universally admitted primitive significa- 
tion. ' ' 

Dr. Carson: "My position is that baptizo always 
signifies to dip; never expressing anything but 
mode. " "To dip or immerse. " "It never means 
to dye.'* 

Dr. Fuller: " Dip, sink, plunge, immerse." 

Prof. Ripley : " To dip is its radical, proper mean- 
ing." 

Prof. Dagg : * * Baptizo signifies the immersion 
which attends drowning or sinking of ships. ' ' He 
thus confesses that * * the sentiment, ' ' that dip ex- 
pounds baptizo^ must in the face of Greek usage be 



BAPTIZO AND BAPTO. 45 

utterly abandoned. Baptizo^ in more than fifty cases 
examined by tliis learned professor, was found in- 
variably to express the condition or state effected by 
drowning or sinking-. Bapto^ in fifty cases exam- 
ined, he found to mean to dip. He gives the uni- 
form translation of bapto, to dip, while he never 
translates baptizo^ in a single instance, to dip. Had 
this gentleman pressed his investigation a little fur- 
ther, he would have discovered that baptize and 
bapto are two radically different words in Greek 
usage. So Dr. Dale. 

M. J. Jewett : * * To dip or immerse, and never has 
any other meaning. ' ' 

Baptist Confession of Faith: *' Plunging is the 
way and manner of dispensing this ordinance taught 
in the Scriptures. ' * 

In all these definitions of baptize^ except that of 
Prof. Dagg, the word is regarded as expressing a 
definite act, and that act expressed by dipping or 
plunging. But by and by the Baptist writers show 
us that they stand in doubt as to their position that 
baptism means dipping, and nothing but dipping. 
Accordingly we find them starting out with a new 
definition. Dr. Gale : ' ' The word baptiza, perhaps, 
does not so necessarily express the action of putting 
under the water, as in general a thing's being in 
that condition, no matter how it comes so, whether 
it is put into the water, or the water comes over it. ' ' 
With this Dr. Morell agrees, where he says : * ' That 
the word baptize uniformly signifies, to. dzp I will not 



46 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

venture to assert, nor undertake to prove." Dr. 
Cox comes over to the same side, and says, " A per- 
son may be immersed by pouring ; but the immer- 
sion is being" plunged into water or overwhelmed by 
it. ' ' With this Drs. Fuller and Morell agree : * * A 
person may be baptized, immersed, by pouring. ' ' 

Dr. Conant says that baptizo has but one meaning, 
and that meaning is an expressed act, a definite act 
characterized by passing from one medium into an- 
other-; and it is distinctly expressed hj plunge. This 
position, he contradicts by and by, where he says, 
'' The word baptizein^ by constant usage, expressed 
an entire submersion of the object. A sense founded 
in the idea of a total submergence, as in floods of 
sorrow.. We speak of a man as immersed in calamity, 
etc. , always with the idea of totality, of being wholly 
under the dominion of those states or influences. ' ' 

Here is an irreconcilable contradiction. In one 
case" he says that baptism is an expressed act^ and in 
the other, a state or condition. But the same word 
cannot express both act and condition^ although act 
and condition may be inseparably united in one 
word. To plunge^ for instance, expresses directly 
the nature of the act which may carry into and under 
water, while swamp expresses nothing, directly of 
the nature of the act which carries its object under 
water, but gives expression to the condition effected, 
whatever may have been the nature of the act. 

Notwithstanding all this. Dr. Conant gives, in his 
translations, according to Dr. Dale, no less than 



BAPTIZO AND BAPTO. 47 

forty acts by which baptism was effected, viz. , " To 
assault, to let down, to flow, to fall, to weigh down, 
to walk, to pierce, to hurl down, to march, to rush 
down, to surround, to press down, to rise above, to 
dip, to submerge, to thrust, to blow, to rush down, 
to strike, to proceed, to sink, to immerge, to im- 
bathe, to plunge, to lower down, to immerse, to 
come on, to overturn, to boil up, to flood, to whelm, 
to let down, to enter in, to pour, to souse, to bring 
down, to depress, to steep, to drench, to play the 
dipping match, and to duck. ' ' In view of all these 
definitions, what becomes of the position that baptizo 
means dip^ and nothing but dip f 

Baptizo^ being a word of varied usage, is never 
confined to any specific act, but whatever act or in- 
fluence is capable of thoroughly changing the char- 
acter, state, or condition of an object, is capable of 
baptizing that object, and by such change of charac- 
ter, state, or condition, assimilating that condition 
to itself, does in fact baptize it. 

The word has a well marked primary and secondary 
usage in all Greek literature. In its primary use it 
means to place an object in a sunken state or con- 
dition within a fluid element, without making any 
provision for the return of that object out of the 
element in which it is thus sunk or baptized. In its 
primary usage, therefore, except by way of figure, 
baptizo could never be employed in ritual baptism. 
But this point will be further illustrated by Scripture 
examples. 



48 BAPTISM ANI> FEET-WASHING. 

In this respect, immerse^ in its primary Latin sig- 
nification, is a translation of the primary Greek sig- 
nification of baptizo. For the word immerse conies 
from the Latin iji and mergo^ the in being changed 
into i7n for the sake of euphony. But as in does of 
itself express simply in-ness of position, so it does 
also in composition. And it must in no case be 
assumed that when in appears in composition with a 
word, it thereby renders that word one of action. 
We deny therefore that in^ as appearing in im-mergo 
or im-merse, expresses of itself movement, or that it 
indicates that mergo or merse has any such character. 
On the contrary, we contend that in compounded 
with mergo or merse ^ expresses merely position, and 
serves to express with emphasis the idea of in-ness, 
which is the leading character of the word with 
which it is associated. 

Ovid speaks of a house as- mersed^ and boats sail- 
ing over it. This house was not plunged or dipped 
into the water, but was inersed by the water rising 
above it. Pliny speaks of a river being mersed into 
another. This was not by the act of dipping into, 
but by the act of flowing. Will it therefore be said 
that mergo means to flow? The act of flowing, by 
which the mersion was effected, is wholly distinct 
from inergo^ although no distinct word is employed 
to express the action. The mersion follows on the 
flowing. 

Thus Virgil (^neid. Lib. III., 605,) also uses the 
word, where he says : * * Spargite me in fluctus, vas- 



BAPTIZO AND BAPTO. 49 

toque immerg-ite ponto. ' ' Translated it reads thus : 
" Cast me into the waves, and immerse (sink) me in 
the deep sea. ' ' Here the action by which the mer- 
sion is effected is stated to be " casting;'' the mer- 
sion following as a consequence. Had ' * immergite ' ' 
been used alone, it would not have meant to cast, to 
dip, to plunge, but the condition would be expressed, 
which would of necessity carry with it some ade- 
quate form of act left unexpressed. 

This is the classical use of the word immerse (sink) , 
and therefore it cannot be allowed to be used as 
synonymous with dip in this controversy. In^ com- 
pounded with bury, in-bury, in-tomb, has as little 
power to change the character of the word as in has in 
immerse. It only emphasizes the in-ness of condition. 
The same is true of in joined with mergo ; and when 
our Baptist friends take Occasion, from the use at 
times of the Latin preposition to denote motion, to 
engraft this idea on immergo^ or immerse^ they do 
what is incapable of justification. It is, however, on 
this ground (and failing to supply the exact verb) 
that the meaning, dip^ plunge^ has been erroneously 
attributed to this word, with some appearance of 
truth (especially to the illiterate) ; while its true ; 
nature and proper usage allowed it to be used in 
cases where dip and plunge were inadmissible. 
Therefore dip and plunge have been used where 
they could be, immerse has been used where it must 
be, with the assumption that it was a kindred word 
with them and expressive of act and movement. 
4 



5© BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

This duplicity of using immerse and dip as synon- 
ymous words must be abated, checked, even though 
it should cost our Baptist friends the very serious 
and painful loss of dipping as a divine command. 

Bapto^ to dip, has, however, nothing to do in this 
controversy; for the Holy Ghost has not once em- 
ployed that word to express the ordinance of bap- 
tism, and no one can show us a single instance, in 
the New Testament or in the Greek and Latin 
Fathers, where that word has ever been employed 
for such a purpose. Why then do our Baptist friends 
introduce into this controversy a word which the 
Holy Ghost has never employed? Where do they 
get the right to change the Scriptures, or to read into 
baptizo the meaning of bapto ? We deny that any 
one has the right to chage the word of God. But 
have not our Baptist friends committed this error in 
confounding baptizo^ the word always used by the 
Holy Ghost in speaking of the ordinance of baptism, 
with bapto ^ which belongs to another family of words? 
All Greek writers refuse to interchange baptizo and 
bapto, or to interchange bapto in a single instance 
with baptizo in speaking of Christian baptism. If 
these two words mean the same thing, if they mean 
to put into a fluid element and to withdraw, is it not 
marvelous that the Holy Ghost has never, in a single 
instance, in speaking of Christian baptism, used 
them interchangeably? Is it therefore becoming for 
those who are very zealous for the Holy Spirit to 
substitute another word for that which the Holy 



BAPTIZO AND BAPTO. 5I 

Ghost teacheth? or, retaining the form of the word, 
to supplement it by using the meaning of a rejected 
word? But this very thing is done by the Baptists, 
who substitute bapto for baptizo, or who give the 
latter word the meaning of the former. 

But bapto^ notwithstanding the teachings of the 
Baptists to the contrary, has some other meanings 
beside dip. It means also to wet, to moisten, to 
wash, to dye, to stain, to smear, to gild, to temper, 
to imbue. Following the order of the definitions 
here given, we also present the reader with an ex- 
ample of each from some Greek author, faithfully 
translated: Theocritus speaks of " dipping honey 
with a pitcher. ' ' Suidas, * * Wetting the hollow of 
his hand, he sprinkles the judgment-seat." Aris- 
totle, ' ' Being pressed it moistens (baptei) and colors 
the hand. " ' ' Bapsai the poet has called to moisten. ' * 
Aratus, * ' Washed his head and shoulders with water 
of the river. ' ' Aristophanes, • ' They wash with 
warm water. " " The lake was dyed with blood. ' ' 
The lake was not dipped in blood. Sophocles, ** It 
is well that thou hast stained thy sword with the 
army of the Greeks. " " Smeared with frog-colored 
washes." "Having gilded poverty thou hast ap- 
peared rich. " * * Temper ers of brass. " " To lose 
temper. " " Imbued with integrity to the bottom. ' ' 
Examples from Dr. Dale. 

From all this it is evident that even bapto does not 
always mean to dip^ and therefore even according to 
the Baptist position neither does baptizo always mean 



52 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

to dip. And if our Baptist friends have a right from 
bapto to read into baptizo, to dip, we have an equal 
right from bapto to read into baptizo^ to moisten, to 
sprinkle, to wash, etc. But we are satisfied, in this 
controversy, to use the word which the Holy Ghost 
invariably employs. 

Baptizo and bapto are therefore two clearly defined, 
distinct, and radical words, both in their classic and 
Scripture usage. Of this we have already a clear 
hint by Prof. Dagg, who always translates baptizo as 
a verb expressing condition or state, and bapto by 
dip. Why is this? It is not of accident, nor because 
he regarded the different words employed as of the 
same value, nor because it was a matter of indiffer- 
ence to the system which he advocated; for the 
Baptist system lives or dies as dip does or does not 
represent baptizo. Why then such a translation? 
The only answer that can be given is that Prof. Dagg 
thus confesses that * ' the sentiment ' ' that dip ex- 
pounds baptizo must, in the face of Greek usage, be 
utterly abandoned. Toward this Dr. Conant also 
leans heavily, although his prejudice in favor of the 
Baptist theory will not allow him to go too far in 
that direction. 

Therefore the primary meaning of baptizo, accord- 
ing to its classical use, is to sink, or immerse, using 
the latter word in its primary Latin signification, in 
and mergo, which does not mean to dip or plwige ; 
nor does it express any definite act, nor yet act or 
movement undefined in character ; but it expresses 



BAPTIZO AND BAPTO. 53 

condition characterized by in-ness of position, com- 
monly within a fluid element, which condition may 
be effected by any act competent thereto. In this 
respect baptizo and mergo are used alike in their re- 
spective languages. But the word hmnerse^ in mod- 
ern parlance, being often associated with the word 
dip^ has acquired the popular idea of putting some- 
thing into a fluid element and withdrawing it. This 
makes immerse a verb of double action like dip ; 
which usage is entirely foreign to its Latin signifi- 
cation, in which like shik it expresses condition or 
state, the result of action. Immerse^ in its ancient 
Latin derivatives, only approximates the meaning of 
baptizo in its primary sense, but there is no English 
word which precisely expresses the varied significa- 
tion of baptizo. At the time our Authorized Version 
was made, baptizo was as much in dispute as it is 
nov/. The translators therefore anglicized the word, 
but did not presume to fix a single meaning to the 
word in the original Greek. 

But what do the best lexicographers and the best 
theologians say of this word baptizo ? 

The position assumed by Baptists generally is that 
baptizo denotes the specific act of dipping only. In 
this position it is assumed that the lexicographers 
are generally with them. 

Shoetgen defines baptizo by the Latin ' * mergo ^ 
iinmergo, abluo^ lavo^ largiter prof undo. ' ' These 
words translated read to merse^ to immerse^ to pur- 
ify, to wash^ to pour copiously. Here the primary 



54 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

signification is to jjierse, which means to sink to the 
bottom, and to leave there ; the secondary, to wash 
by pouring copiously. 

Passow defines the word, ' ' often and repeatedly 
to dip in, to dip under, therefore to moisten, to 
dampen, to sprinkle. ' ' 

Parkhurst defines baptizo, * * to immerse, to plunge, 
to wash one's self, be washed, wash; to baptize, to 
wash in or with water in token of purification from 
sin and from spiritual pollution ; to baptize as with 
cloud and sea; baptized (not unto Moses, as our. Eng- 
lish Authorized Version has it, but) into Moses, i. e. , 
with the covenant, etc. ; unto Christ, etc. ' ' 

Swing's Greek Lexicon thus classifies its mean- 
ing: " I. I plunge or sink completely under water. 
2. I cover partially with water. 3. I overwhelm or 
cover with water by rushing, flowing; or pouring 
upon. 4. I drench or impregnate with liquor by 
affusion ; I pour abundantly upon, so as to wet thor- 
oughly; I infuse. 5. I oppress or overwhelm by 
bringing burdens, afflictions, or distress upon. 6. / 
wash^ in gejieral. 7. / wash for the special purpose 
of symbolical^ ritual or ceremonial purification. 8. I 
administer the ordinance of Christian baptism; I 
baptize. ' ' 

Hesychius, who lived in the fourth century, assigns 
to baptizo but one general meaning, and that he 
finds in the word * * antleo, which signifies to draw, 
or pump, or pour out water. ' ' Alas ! what has be- 
come of dipping and nothing but dip? This has no 



BAPTIZO AND BAPTO. 55 

reference whatever to immerse. Hesychius would 
thus make the baptism of water correspond to the 
thing signified, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, who 
was poured out upon the disciples. 

Ursinus defines it by " abluo, aspergo, ' ' that is, 
* * to wask, to sprinkle. ' ' 

Scapula defines baptizo, " Mergo seu immergo, 
item submergo, item abluo, lavo. " That is, being 
interpreted, sink or immerge, also submerge, also to 
remove filth by washing, to wash away, to cleanse 
or purify, to wash. Here to sink, to immerge, to 
submerge, express the primary use of baptizo, while 
to cleanse, to wash, express the secondary, which we 
will see is the Scripture meaning, and the only sense 
in which it can be used in ritual baptism. Scapula 
therefore does not uphold the position that baptizo 
denotes nothing else but the specific act of dipping ; 
that is, to put into a fluid and withdraw. There is 
no withdrawing or emerging from the fluid element 
what is put therein. 

But why take up more time in quoting more lexi- 
cons which we have at hand to prove that baptizo 
has a classical or scriptural meaning, or a primary 
and secondary, the first to sink to the bottom and to 
leave there, and the second to wash for ceremonial 
purification, when Dr. Carson, a distinguished Bap- 
tist, acknowledges that all the lexicographers and 
commentators are against the Baptist position that 
baptizo means dip and nothing but dip f The follow- 
ing is Dr. Carson's humble confession on this point: 



56 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

' ' My position is, that baptizo always signifies to dip, 
never expressing anything but mode. Now, as I 
have all the lexicographers and commentators against 
me in this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word 
or two with respect to the authority of lexicons. 
Many may be startled at the idea of refusing to sub- 
mit to the unanimous authority of lexicons as an in- 
stance of the boldest skepticism. Are lexicons, it 
may be asked, of no authority? Now, I admit that 
lexicons are an authority, but they are not an ulti- 
mate authority. Lexicographers have been guided 
by their own judgment in examining the various 
passages in which the word occurs; and it is still 
competent for every man to have recourse to the 
same sources. The meaning of the word must be 
determined by an actual inspection of the passages 
in which it occurs, as often as any one chooses to dis- 
pute the judgment of the lexicographers. ' ' 

Dr. Carson, therefore, admits that the Baptist 
position cannot be proved from the lexicons and the 
commentators, that baptizo means to dip and nothing 
but dip. He appeals to the classics. Therefore to 
the classics let us follow him. What then is the 
primary use of baptizo in the classics? We give 

;some examples from the Classic Baptism of Dr. 
Dale, who is said to have examined every passage in 

\ the classics bearing on this much-disputed word. 

Aristotle : * ' They say that the Phoenicians inhabit- 
ing the region called Gadira, sailing beyond the 

. Pillars of Hercules, with an easterly wind, four days, 



BAPTIZO AND BAPTO. 



57 



reach certain desert places full of rush and sea- 
weeds ; which when it is ebb tide are not {baptizesthai) 
mersed ; but when it is full tide are flooded. ' ' From 
this it is evident that Aristotle did not use the word 
baptizo in its modern Baptist sense, to dip^ but in the 
sense of permanent condition or state. The rush 
and seaweeds were stationary on the seacoast, and 
were only baptized when the tide flowed over them, 
and only as long as they remained in that state or 
condition were they said to be baptized. This ex- 
ample changes the whole face of the controversy, 
and shows the absurdity of endeavoring to make 
ritual baptism to conform to the primary use of the 
word. This must be sought and can only be found 
in the secondary, as will be made to appear when we 
come to discuss that point. We see therefore from 
this example that it is not true, according to Aris- 
totle, who wrote classic Greek, that baptizo means to 
dip and nothing else — expressing the specific act of 
dipping and denoting nothing but mode. 

Plutarch : ' ' And dying they filled the lake with 
dead bodies ; so that to the present day many bar- 
baric arrows, and helmets, and pieces of iron breast- 
plates and swords, tnersed in the marshes, are 
found. ' ' 

Here is a condition of baptism in which these 
weapons and pieces of armor are found after the 
lapse of a long series of years. It will require Car- 
son to rise from the dead to pronounce this a case of 
dipping. His mantle has fallen on no living man. 



58 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

All these bows, helmets, breastplates, swords, were 
equally baptized. But where is the dipping in this 
example? The long repose of these relics in a state 
of baptism at the bottom of the marshes, in which 
they lay buried for ages, casts shame on the whole 
Baptist theory, which endeavors to make ritual bap- 
tism conform with the primary, and not the second- 
ary use of the Greek word baptizo. We will never 
come to the truth of this word by seeking it in the 
heathen classics. Its true use and meaning must be 
sought in the New Testament Greek. 

Many more examples of the primary use of baptizo 
are furnished and at hand in Dr. Dale's Classic 
Baptism, but these which have been here given are 
sufficient to illustrate the primary classical meaning 
and use of baptizo. From these it is evident that 
baptizo., in the Greek classics, does not mean primar- 
ily to dip., that is, to put into a fluid element and to 
withdraw, but that it means a permanent state or 
condition of an object in a fluid element, without 
regard to mode or duration. 

But there is also a secondary use of baptizo in 
classic writers. Words are continually changing 
from a primary to a secondary use, w^hich ultimately 
takes the place of the primary. Take for instance 
the word prevent. Formerly it meant to go before ; 
now it means to hinder. Let formerly meant to 
hinder ; now it means to permit. Dr. Carson admits 
that the secondary may become the primary. And 
he says that the secondary is just as literal as the 



BAPTIZO AND BAPTO. 59 

primary. So with baptizo in ritual "baptism ; it has 
ceased to be a heathen, and it has become a Chris- 
tian. The secondary use of baptizo has already made 
its appearance in classic writers. 

^sop says : ' * And baptizing- the tow with oil, 
binding it to her tail, he set it on fire. ' ' This is told 
of a fox that had been caught, and was thus punished 
for mischief done. Dipping is not allowed in the 
case ; for we have the dative without the preposition, 
which here denotes instrumentality. 

Heliodorus : ' * When midnight had baptized the 
city with sleep. " Where is the dipping in this case? 

Libanius: " He exhorts the class of breadmakers 
to be more just, but he did not think it proper to use 
compulsion, fearing the running away of the masses ; 
by which the city would immediately be baptized, 
just as a ship, the sailors having- deserted it." 
Where is the dipping in this case^^ — either in figure or 
in fact? 



CHAPTER V. 



LUTHER NO IMMERSIONIST. 



Baptists sometimes quote Luther as an immer- 
sionist. It is certainly a source of gratification to us 
that Luther is so well received by them. If they 
would only lay more stress on Justification by Faith, 
as Luther taught it, we would be better satisfied 
with our Baptist friends. The passage quoted to 
prove the charge is a letter giving an account of the 
baptism of a converted Jewess. We quote from Dr. 
Krauth : 

1. The passage referred to is a letter from Luther 
written from Coburg, July 9, 1530, in reply to an 
Evangelical pastor, Henry Genesius, who had con- 
sulted him in regard to the baptism of a Jewish girl. 
This occurred after issue of the Catechism in which 
it is pretended that he taught baptism by dipping. 

2. The letter is given in Walch and also in the 
Leipsic edition (xxii., 37), and is not, however, the 
original, but a translation ; and that from a defective 
copy of the original. The original letter is given in 
the De Wette's Luther's Briefe (iv., 80), and con- 
tains a most important sentence, which is not found 
in the German translation. The letter in Walch 

(60) 



LUTHER NO IMMERSIONIST. 6l 

cannot therefore be cited in evidence, for it is neither 
the original nor a reliable translation of it. 

3. The whole letter shows that the main point of 
inquiry was not as to whether she would be baptized 
in this or that mode, but what precaution decency 
demanded during the baptism. 

4 . Luther says in his letter, * * It would please me 
therefore that she should stand and modestly have 
the water poured upon her {mihi placer et^ verecunde 
perfunditur) ; or sitting in the water up to her neck, 
her head should be immersd with a trine immer- 
sion." This mode doubtless refers to the Jewish 
custom of immersion, according to which the candi- 
date sits in water up to the neck, and then certain 
portions of the law are read to him or her. It refers 
to the Jewish mode in the days of Luther, and not to 
the Bible mode. 

5. An immersionist is one who contends that bap- 
tism must be by immersion. The passage quoted is 
decisive that Luther did not think that baptism must 
be by immersion. He represents it pleasing to him, 
either that the girl should have the water applied by 
pouring, or if she be immersed, she should sit in the 
water up to her neck, and that her head should be 
immersed. Greater precautions, for the sake of de- 
cency, should be observed than were usual in the 
Church of Rome. It is demonstrated by this very 
letter that Luther was not an immersionist. 

6. In suggesting the modes of baptism, Luther 
was simply following the ritual of the Romish church. 



62 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

In the Roman ritual the direction is : " Baptism may- 
be performed either by pouring, immersion, or 
sprinkling; but either the first or second modes, 
which are most in use, shall be retained according as 
it has been the usage of the churches to employ the 
one or the other, so that either the head of the per- 
son to be baptized shall have a trine ablution, ' ' /. e. , 
either water shall be poured upon it, or the head 
shall be immersed, Luther again quotes almost 
verbatim. 

In the Romish ritual, furthermore, for the bap- 
tism of adults, it is said : * ' But in the church when 
baptism is performed by immersion, either of the 
entire body or the head only, the priest shall baptize 
by thrice immersing his head or person. Luther 
directed, in case the Jewess was immersed at all, 
that the officiating minister should immerse her head 
only. She was to seat herself in the bath, and the 
only religious immersion was not that of the whole 
body (as Rome permits, and the Baptist, if consist- 
ent, would prescribe), but of her head only. Luther, 
so far as he approved of immersion, was not as much 
of an immersionist as the ritual of Rome might have 
made him ; for he does not hint at the immersion of 
the whole body by the minister. An immersionist 
contends that the whole body must be submerged, 
even to the extent thereof to which he allowed im- 
mersion. Luther was not an immersionist. 

7. If Luther could be proved an immersionist 
from this letter, it would be demonstrated that he 



LUTHER NO IMMERSIONIST. 6$ 

derived his views from the Romish church, and held 
it in common with her. In like manner the Church 
of England (the Episcopal church) would be carried 
over to the ranks of immersionists ; for they allow 
the different modes. Luther was not an immer- 
sionist. 

8. Whatever Luther's personal preference may- 
have been as to the mode, he never doubted the 
validity of baptism by pouring. But immersionists 
do not merely doubt it; they absolutely deny it. 
Therefore, Luther was not an immersionist. 

9. An immersionist is one who makes his peculiar 
mode of baptism a term of church communion and 
an article of faith. Luther was in a church which 
did not prescribe immersion as necessary, and never 
made it an article of faith. Therefore, Luther was 
not an immersionist. 

10. Luther's translation of the words connected 
with baptism prove that he was not an immersionist. 
So far Dr. Krauth. 

Luther is often quoted by Baptists as giving the 
meaning of bapto^ to dip^ to baptizo. From this it is 
made out that Luther was an immersionist. Luther, 
in 15 19, while he was yet under Romish errors, in 
regard to this as well as other subjects, and before 
he had thoroughly studied the word of God, and be- 
fore he had translated the Scriptures into the Ger- 
man language, when he entirely changed his views 
as to the mode of baptism, from dipping to pouring, 
said : * ' Die Tauf heist auf Griechisch Baptismos, zu 



64 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

Latein mersio das ist wenn man etwas ganz ins 
Wasser tauchet, ' * etc. Baptism is called in Greek 
Baptismos^ in Latin, Mersio^ that is, when anything 
is wholly steeped into water, so as to be overwhelmed. 
And although, in many places, it is no more the cus- 
tom to plunge and steep the children into the bap- 
tismal font, yet it would be right, according to the 
etymology of the word Tauf, wholly to sink the 
child or person baptized into the font, and again to 
withdraw; for without doubt in the German lan- 
guage the word Tauf is derived from the word Tief^ 
* * that what is baptized be sunk deep into the 
water," etc. 

These were Luther's views of the mode of bap- 
tism in 15 19, only two years after he had written his 
Ninety-Five Theses, and while he was yet a Romish 
priest, and a member of the Romish church, which 
directed that baptism should be administered either 
by pouring, immersion, or sprinkling. The sermon 
from which this passage is taken was written five 
years before he commenced his translation of the 
New Testament, and more than twenty years before 
he gave his Bible its final revision. In his Bible he 
never in a single instance translates baptizo by dip ; 
and in his liturgy he directs that baptism should be 
performed by pouring the water. But even in the 
passage quoted, Luther gives only the etymology, 
that is, the primary meaning of the word baptizo^ to 
sink, to overwhelm, etc. This we have all along ad- 
mitted to be the primary use of the word ; but it is 
not its secondary or ritual use, as Luther also admits. 



LUTHER NO IMMERSIONIST. 65 

Dr. Dale, in his great work on Baptism, on which 
he spent the greater part of his ministerial life, hav- 
ing examined every classical text in which the Greek 
word baptizo is found, shows most conclusively and 
overwhelmingly that baptizo does not refer to mode 
whatever, but * ' expresses any complete change of con- 
dition by whatever agency effected^ or in whatever way 
applied. ' ' He also says that through daily and long 
continued use, baptizo has secured in the classics a 
secondary use, conveying an idea derived, but dis- 
sociated, from the primary use, which gives it a 
status of its own without recurring to the source 
whence it sprang. 

Whence then do Baptists get this double action, 
expressed by dipping, into the word baptizo ? They 
get it from the word bapto^ which they say is the root 
of baptizo. Well then, let us take the word bapto, 
with which our friends endeavor to make out their 
case, and let us show where that word belongs in this 
controversy. The word bapto means ' ' to dip, to 
moisten, to wash, to dye, to stain, to paint, to gild, 
to temper, to tincture," etc. It has, as you per- 
ceive, a great many significations ; but to dip is its 
primary one. Now, they take the meaning of bapto^ 
a radically different word from baptizo, and read the 
meaning of the former into the latter, and come 
therefore to the conclusion that baptizo means dip- 
ping also, because bapto does. Is this honest? The 
word bapto is an intruder in the domain of baptizo,, 
and as such it should be unceremoniously dismissed. 
5 



66 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

AVhat right have our Baptist friends to introduce into 
this controversy a word which is never employed 
by the Holy Ghost in speaking of the ordinance of 
baptism? Baptizo is the only word employed when- 
ever the sacrament of baptism is mentioned in the 
New Testament Scriptures, and therefore that is the 
only word which demands our attention, Bapto is 
therefore rejected, because the Holy Ghost has never 
made use of this word in the numerous passages in 
which He speaks of the ordinance of baptism. The 
ritual baptism of the New Testament is no dipping 
baptism, as we shall see when we come to study 
baptizo from a New Testament point of view. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE SCRIPTURE USAGE OF BAPTIZO. 

Our Baptist friends say that this word means to 
dip and nothing else. This position we have found 
nnsustained by the classics. But they contend that 
in the Scriptures it also means to dip and nothing but 
dip. Therefore ' * to the law and to the testimony : 
if they speak not according to this word, it is be- 
cause there is no light in them." The question 
therefore is, ' ' Do the Scriptures use the word baptizo 
in the sense of dip and nothing else?" The Baptists 
say they do ; we will prove they do not. 

Before entering, however, on the proof, we wish to 
call the attention of our readers to the fact that the 
Greek of the New Testament is not classic Greek, 
and its words are often used in a technical sense. 
From this fact there arises an element of diction 
peculiar to Christianity. When the gospel com- 
menced to be preached, the Greek language was al- 
most universal, and that language was adopted by 
providence through which to convey the rich treas- 
ures of grace to the common people. In this way 
the Greek language has become, as it were. Chris- 
tianized. The sacred use and the classical use are 
often very different. 

(67) 



68 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

So with the word baptizo in the Scriptures ; it has 
lost its primary^ except by way of figure, and is 
used altogether in its secondary sense. 

Schoetgen, as we have already seen, defines baptizo 
by * ' mergo^ ' * to smk, and * ' largiter profurido. ' * 
Here mergo is the primary, and largiter profundo, 
copiously pouring, the secondary. All these terms 
have been noticed except largiter profundo, cop- 
iously pouring. Baptizo, therefore, according to 
Schoetgen, means copiously pouring. Is it ever so 
used in speaking of ritual baptism? The three cop- 
ious overpourings of water on Elijah's altar on 
Mount Carmel are spoken of by Origen, Basil Mag- 
nus, Gregory Nazianzen, and Ambrose, as a type of 
Christian baptism. On this passage, i Kings xviii. 
32-38, Ambrose says: " Elias showed a type of bap- 
tism, and opened heaven, which had been shut three 
years and six months. For no one can ascend into 
the kingdom of heaven except by water and the 
Spirit. ' ' This illustration strikes a fatal blow at the 
Baptist theory, that baptism is nothing else but dip- 
ping. There was surely no dipping on Elijah's altar 
on Mount Carmel. The water was poured copiously 
upon the altar three times, and this the church fath- 
ers have called a type of Christian baptism. 

Canon says, in reference to the murder of Alexan- 
der: •* Thebe exhorted to the murder, and having 
baptized and put to sleep Alexander by much wine, 
she dismissed the guards of the bedchamber under 
pretext of using the bath, and called the brothers to 



THE SCRIPTURE USAGE OF BAPTIZO. 69 

work. ' ' Does this mean that Thebe dipped Alexan- 
der in wine, and then having put him to sleep, called 
the murderers to their bloody work ? No, no ; Alex- 
ander poured the wine copiously down his throat, like 
a drunkard as he was ; and thus being under the in- 
fluence of wine, put into a drunken condition or 
state, he was an easy subject for his murderers. 
The classics and the Scriptures are full of this sec- 
ondary meaning of baptizo^ to pour copiously. Does 
not also St. Paul allude to this thought, Eph. v. i8, 
where he says : * ' And be not drunk with wine, 
wherein is excess ; but be filled with the Spirit ' ' ? 
" Baptized with wine " is a familiar thought in the 
Greek classics. 

Hesychius, who lived in the fourth century, as we 
have already seen, assigns to baptize but one general 
meaning, and that he finds in the word antleo, which 
signifies to pump water ^ or to draw water ^ and to 
pour it into a vessel. This would make baptizo to 
mean copiously pouring. As water in baptism is 
poured out upon the baptized, as from one vessel 
into another, so the Holy Spirit is poured out upon 
him who believes in Jesus. '* In whom also, after 
that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit 
of promise," Eph. i. 13. We have many Scripture 
illustrations of this definition of baptizo^ as copiously 
pouring. * ' I will pour out my Spirit unto you, ' ' 
Prov. i. 23. "I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
flesh," Joel ii. 28; Acts iii. 17, 18. ** I will pour 
water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the 



7© BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

dry ground: I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, 
and my blessing upon thine offspring, "Is. xliv. 3. 

Luther, in the German Bible, always translates 
baptizo by the word taufen^ which means to baptize^ 
leaving the mode undefined. Tunken means to dip^ 
but this corresponds with the Greek bapto^ which is 
used in no passage of Scripture where the ordinance 
of baptism is mentioned. See Mark vii. 4 ; Luke xi. 
38. In these and other places he translates baptizo 
to wash. In 1523, Luther issued his own directions 
for baptism : ' * Wie man recht und verstdndlich einen 
Menschen zmn Christen-glauben taufen soil.'' In 
these directions Luther says : ' ' The person baptizing 
pours the water (geusst Wasser auf), and says, ^^Ego 
baptizo /^, " that is in German, '*Ich tauf dich " (I 
baptize thee). Pouring alone, and pouring cop- 
iously, is described by Luther as baptism. And in 
his Larger Catechism Luther says : ' ' Dass du Idssest 
das Wasser ilber dich giessen. ' ' Literally translated, 
"That thou lettest the water pour copiously over 
thee." Again: '"''Was sollt ein Hand voll Wassers 
der Seelen he If en f What can a handful of water 
help the soul? This shows that " the handful of 
water ' ' was connected with a received mode at that 
time in the Lutheran church. 

Let us now turn to Heb. ix. 10: "Which stood 
only in meats and drinks, and divers washings (divers 
baptismois, baptisins)."' If you turn to Numbers xix. 
18, 19, you will find the following: '* And a clean 
person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and 



THE SCRIPTURE USAGE OF BAPTIZO. 7 1 

sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon the vessels, and 
upon the persons that were there, and upon him that 
touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a 
grave : and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the 
unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: 
and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and 
wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and 
shall be clean at even." Here the use of water by 
sprinkling^ washing^ and bathing are called divers 
baptisms in Greek. 

In St. Mark vii. 4, we read: " When the Pharisees 
come from the market, except they wash {baptizontai^ 
baptize themselves)^ they eat not. And many other 
things there be, which they have received to hold, 
as the washing {baptismous) of cups, and pots, and 
brazen vessels, and of tables (klinon^ beds)/' It 
was certainly the custom of the Jews to wash their 
hands before dinner (Luke xi. 38) ; but what author 
of any standing, or minister of any judgment, ever 
contended that they entirely immersed themselves 
in water before every meal after they had returned 
from market? Yet this application of water, which 
was poured upon their hands, to a very small part of 
their body, is called baptism. The cups and pots 
they might have dipped in water, yet of this we are 
not certain, and it was contrary to the Jewish mode 
of ceremonial purification, which we have already 
proved was done by sprinkling or pouring. But will 
it be contended that the beds or couches, on which 
they reclined at their meals, were carried to some 



72 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

stream or river and dipped? Or that every Pharisee 
had a cistern provided in his yard for this purpose? 
But to dip in stagnant water would defile more and 
more. It is therefore evident that many of the 
purifications, termed baptisms^ were performed by 
sprinkling or pouring; while it is not certain that 
they were performed by dipping in a single case. 

We here reiterate the proposition or truth, men- 
tioned before, that, the words of the Bible must be 
interpreted according to the meaning which the 
sacred writers attached to them. When we read a 
book, and desire to understand its author, we must 
interpret his words by the sense in which he employs 
them. We are not permitted to read an obsolete 
meaning into his words when he uses them in an- 
other well-received sense. So with the word baptizo. 
It has two distinct meanings ; a classical and a scrip- 
tural; or a primary and a secondary. In the old 
classics it means to sink something to the bottom in 
a fluid element, and to leave it there^ there being 
nothing in the word to bring up that which was sunk 
to the bottom. The Baptists bring the double action 
into the word through bapto, which is never em- 
ployed by the Holy Ghost in the ordinance of bap- 
tism. In the description of this sacrament He always 
uses baptizo. 

The scriptural or secondary meaning of baptizo^ 
to baptize^ means to wash for ceremonial purifica- 
tion, which was well understood by the Jews to be 
done by pouring or sprinkling. 



THE SCRIPTURE USAGE OF BAPTIZO. 73 

In the passages quoted above, we see that the 
word wash in our Authorized Version is in the 
Greek baptizo — except they baptize themselves they 
eat not. And what did they baptize? They bap- 
tized themselves, their cups, and pots, and brazen 
vessels, and beds, or couches on which they reclined 
by their tables. Is it reasonable to suppose that the 
Pharisees and all the Jews, whenever they came 
home from market, where they had come in contact 
with the people, and thus had become defiled, as 
they supposed and as they were taught by their 
traditionalism, would immerse themselves in water, 
and also their cups, and their pots, and their brazen 
vessels, and their reclining couches, before they 
would eat their meals? The matter is reduced to an 
absurdity. It is therefore evident to the common 
reader from the narrative itself, that they washed or 
baptized for ceremonial purification, which was done 
by the Jews by pouring or sprinkling. 

That the word wash or baptize is used in our text 
under consideration in the sense of washing for cere- 
monial purification, is evident from verse 3, which 
reads: " For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except 
they wash (nipsontai) their hands oft, eat not, hold- 
ing the tradition of the elders." Nipto, in the 
Greek, means ' ' to wet, to wash the face, hands, 
feet," etc., and differs from Luo, "to wash the 
whole body, to bathe. ' ' 

And by this word nipto, we also get at another 
meaning of the word baptize^ as used in this connec- 



74 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

tion. It means not only to wash for ceremonial 
purification, but it also means to wash ceremonially 
a part of the body, for the whole body. That is, if 
a part of the body is washed for ceremonial purifica- 
tion, the whole body is ceremonially pure. Let us 
not forget this point; for it will serve us a good 
turn in this discussion of the mode of baptism. If 
the head is baptized, the whole man is baptized. If 
a drop of water mingled with heifer ashes fell upon 
the ceremonially unclean, he became ceremonially 
clean. 

Now, let me prove to you that the Jews washed or 
baptized for ceremonial purification by pouring or 
sprinkling, and that baptizo was so understood by 
Christ and His disciples. We say that Christ and 
His contemporaries understood and used the word 
baptizo in the sense of washing for ceremonial puri- 
fication by pouring or sprinkling. Besides Mark 
vii. 1-8, we have also Luke xi. 37-41. It is written 
in the law, *' That the testimony of two men is 
true." Luke says of the same subject: " And as he 
spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with 
him: and he went in, and sat down with him to 
meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled 
that he had not first washed {katharizete) before 
dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye 
Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the 
platter ; but your inward part is full of ravening and 
wickedness." Compare John i. 25 with John iii. 25. 
Baptizo in the former is used in the same sense with 



THE SCRIPTURE USAGE OF BAPTIZO. 7$ 

katharizo^ to piirify\ in the latter. John the Evan- 
gelist here uses the word baptizo in the sense of 
katharizo^ to wash for ceremonial purification, which 
we have over and over proved was performed by 
pouring or sprinkling. 

Christ's commission to His disciples reads thus: 
" Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the 
end of the world. ' ' Now, how did the apostles un- 
derstand the w^ord baptizo in the commission? Did 
they understand it in the old classical sense, to sink 
to the bottom, and to leave there, or did they under- 
stand it in the sense of to wash for ceremonial puri- 
fication, which they well knew from their Jewish 
customs was performed by pouring or sprinkling? 
Their own practice and teaching, as found in the 
Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles, must ulti- 
mately decide this question. 

The controversy, then, between Baptists and 
Psedobaptists refers to the subjects and the mode of 
baptism. The former hold that adult believers only 
are to be baptized, and that dipping is the only valid 
mode of baptism ; the latter maintain that children 
of believing parents may and ought to be baptized, 
and that baptism may be administered by pouring or 
sprinkling as well as by dipping. 

In I Cor. X. 1-2, we read: " Moreover, brethren, 



76 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all 
our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed 
through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses 
in the cloud and in the sea. ' ' This is a beautiful 
passage of Scripture. Look at the points presented 
to our view ; the Israelites, the cloud, and the sea. 
The Lord made the sea dry land^ and the waters 
were divided; and the children of Israel went into 
• the midst of the sea on dry ground^ and so passed 
through to the opposite shore. Over the Israelites 
and between them and the Egyptians was the Pillar 
of Cloud, the Shekinah, in which the Lord dwelt. 
" And it came to pass, that in the morning- watch 
the Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians, and 
took off their chariot- wheels, that they drave them 
heavily ; so that the Egyptians said. Let us flee from 
the face of Israel; for the Lord fighteth for them 
against the Egyptians. ' ' Thus protected by the sea 
and the cloud, the Israelites passed through, and 
were delivered from their enemies. This St. Paul 
calls a baptism into the Mosaic economy; in other 
words, a consecration to God's service. This whole 
transaction gives us an allegorical illustration of bap- 
tism. The Pillar of Cloud, or the Shekinah, over 
and between the Israelites and the Egyptians, repre- 
sents the water in the baptism; and the Lord in 
the Pillar of Cloud, or Shekinah, represents the 
name of the Triune God in the baptismal formula. 
The Lord looked through the Pillar of Cloud, and 
by the manifestation of His glory confounded the 



THE SCRIPTURE USAGE OF BAPTIZO, 77 

Egyptians ; while the Israelites under His cheering- 
light marched toward the promised rest. But you 
perceive that the baptism of the Israelites, men^ 
women^ and children^ in the cloud and in the sea, was 
neither by immersion nor by dipping; for they 
passed over on dry ground. Whatever water came 
from this baptism, must have been by the spray 
blov/ing upon them. For in order to have been 
dipped into the cloud and into the sea, it would 
have been necessary for them to have been above 
the cloud and above the sea, and to have been let 
down and pulled out by some supernatural power ; 
but the text tells us that the Israelites were under 
the cloud, and passed through the channel on dry 
ground. Here, therefore, we have a baptism with- 
out immersion or dipping. The other party were 
immersed, and sunk to the bottom like lead; but 
they have not been heard of since !. 

Let us now see how Christian baptism answers to 
this allegory. Christian baptism is a sacrament. 
But what is a sacrament? A sacrament is a symbol 
of grace. Christian baptism is therefore a symbol 
of grace. But where the symbol is,, there is the 
grace offered. Just as the Pillar of Cloud and 
Jehovah dwelling in it constituted the Shekinah, so 
water and the word of God constituted the sacrament 
of baptism. But the Logos, the Word, the Dabar, 
was the Jehovah, who dwelled in the Pillar of Cloud, 
and who delivered or saved the Israelites from all 
their enemies. That word, was made flesh, and 



78 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

shekinized among us. He died for our sins, and was 
raised for our justification. He is now glorified, and 
has returned to us, and dwells with us in His word 
and sacraments. By the preaching of His word and 
the administration of His sacraments we may be 
cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, 
and perfected in holiness; if we willingly, and 
prayerfully, and constantly use these means of grace. 
And just as the word of the Lord, looking through 
the Pillar of Cloud, confounded the Egyptians, so 
* ' the word of God is still quick, and powerful, and 
sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to 
the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the 
joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts 
and intents of the heart." Be assured that the 
water in baptism does not sanctify us ; for without 
the word of God the water is mere water, and no 
baptism ; but with the word of God it is a baptism, a 
merciful water of life, and a laver of regeneration in 
the Holy Ghost: as St. Paul says to Titus, iii. 5, 6: 
" According to His mercy hath He saved us by the 
washing of regeneration and the renewing of the 
Holy Ghost : which He hath shed on us abundantly 
through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Many of those 
very Israelites, although baptized unto Moses, per- 
ished in the wilderness, and never reached the prom- 
ised land. Wherefore? Because, as St. Paul says, 
" The word preached did not profit them, not being 
mixed with faith in them that heard it. ' ' 

Very intimately connected with the passage, which 



THE SCRIPTURE USAGE OF BAPTIZO. 79 

we have just been discussing, is the one found in 
I Peter iii. 21, " The like figure whereunto even 
baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away 
of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good 
conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. ' ' Baptism is here called an antitype of the 
flood; our salvation by baptism resembles Noah's 
salvation by water. The points of resemblance are 
the ark, Noah and his family in the ark, the water, 
and the Antediluvians. Noah and all his house 
were saved by the waters of the flood coming be- 
tween him and the corrupt antediluvian world. 
The water bore up the ark and its contents, while 
the Antediluvians were overwhelmed by its billows. 
This is called a type of baptism. How is this^ The 
answer to this question is found in the apostle's 
negative and positive definition of baptism. 

Baptism is not the mere outward washing (*'* not 
the putting away of the filth of the flesh ") ; not re- 
quiring as much water in its administration, as is 
needed to wash a filthy body. Water, whether 
much or little, is merely the sign of the Holy Ghost, 
or Christ in His Spirit, whose presence in us and we 
in Him, as Noah and his family were in the ark by 
divine appointment, alone can separate us from our 
sins; so strikingly illustrated by the overthrow of 
the Antediluvians. 

Hence, baptism does not depend on the quantity 
of water. How much stress some people lay upon 
the quantity of water for this baptism ! They think 



8o BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

they are not baptized unless they are plunged into 
a flood of water. Even the water that saved Noah 
from the Antediluvians was poured upon the ark. 
Noah and his family were first put into the ark, and 
the Lord shut them in. Henceforth there was to be 
no further communication between them and the 
Antediluvians. " The same day were the foun- 
tains of the great deep broken up, and the windows 
of heaven were opened." The water was poured 
upon the ark, and thus the Antediluvian sinners 
were washed away from Noah, and the new race, 
which started in Noah's family, was saved from the 
contaminating influences of the old world. All this 
is represented in ritual baptism, which is a spiritual 
washing. As St. Paul says, " Husbands, love your 
wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave 
Himself for it ; that He might sanctify and cleanse 
it with the washing of water by the word, that He 
might present it to Himself a glorious church, not 
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but that 
it should be holy and without blemish. ' ' But St. 
Peter, who knew all about this subject, says that 
baptism is not mere outward washing ; " it is not the 
putting away of the filth of the flesh. ' ' With this 
Luther's definition corresponds: ** Baptism is not 
mere water ; but it is that water which the ordinance 
of God enjoins, and which is connected with God's 
word. ' ' 

Baptism is therefore positively the answer of a 
good conscience toward God. But who have a good 



THE SCRIPTURE USAGE OF BAPTIZO. 61 

conscience toward God, but sncli as have by the re- 
generating grace of God been separated from the 
world, the flesh, and the devil? This regenerating, 
justifying and sanctifying Spirit in our hearts is the 
real baptism of Christ, which saves us, of which 
water is the outward sign. 

But how can our Baptist friends get dipping out 
of this baptism of Noah and his family in the ark? 
When Noah and his family had entered the ark, and 
the Lord had shut the door, then the rains descended 
and the floods came. The ark and all its contents 
were baptized by the descending rain, which lasted 
forty days and forty nights, but they were neither 
immersed nor dipped. The Antediluvians were wt- 
mersed, simk, classically baptized, not by being 
plunged into the water and lifted out again, but by 
the overwhelming billows which rolled over them 
more terrifically than the full tide baptized the rush 
and sea-weeds of Aristotle. Baptism by dipping 
therefore can be gotten out of this passage only by 
an immense stretch of figure, by making the over- 
whelmed Antediluvians to represent our old man, 
and Noah saved in the ark our new man. But all 
this can certainly not be gotten out of the mode of 
baptism ; but out of baptism itself, the grace of God, 
which will be proved more fully under another head. 
And even this idea of the figure employed the Bap- 
tists cannot get out of it unless they read the mean- 
ing of bapto into baptiso, which we cannot allow from 
the Scripture meaning and usage of the latter word. 
6 



82 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

Let US next turn to i Cor. xv. 29 : ** Else what 
shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the 
dead rise not at all? AVhy are they then baptized 
for the dead?" Some find in this passage an allu- 
sion to a practice of baptizing- persons over the 
graves of martyrs or catechumens who died before 
baptism was administered. The Greek preposition, 
hiiper^ over, would certainly favor this interpretation, 
which is the one that Luther followed, who has ren- 
dered the phrase, ' ' for the dead, " ' * ueber den 
Toden.'' The words of Luther are: "They are 
baptized at the graves of the dead, in token of the 
dead that lay buried there, and over whom they that 
were baptized would rise again. As we also might 
administer baptism publicly in the common church- 
yard or burying place." But could baptism over 
the graves of martyrs be performed by dipping? 
Were their graves dug at the bottom of rivers? 
Who will answer? 



CHAPTER VII. 

PLACES WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. 

Come we now to the places where baptisms w^ere 
performed. By these our Baptist friends would 
prove that baptism is dipping and nothing else. 
Here we must again hear about John's baptism in 
Enon, and Philip and the Eunuch on the road be- 
tw^een. Jerusalem and Gaza. Let us briefly look at 
the topography of these places. 

" John was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, be- 
cause there was much water there. ' ' The Greek for 
" much water " is many springs. Enon abounded in 
springs^ but not in rivers ; for it was some distance 
from the Jordan. If it had been close to the Jordan, 
the Evangelist would hardly have called attention to 
the much water there. Modern travelers, however, 
have not yet succeeded in fixing the site of ancient 
Enon, and that whole region seems rather destitute 
of water. A few springs are pointed out to the 
traveler in that region, which were probably the 
many springs mentioned in the text. 

How should therefore John's baptizing in Enon 
determine the mode of baptism in the Christian 
church? The ten thousands, who followed John, re- 

(83) 



84 - BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

quired an abundance of water for their subsistence ; 
the springs would be well adapted for such purposes, 
but very unsuitable places for dipping. 

Now for Philip and the Eunuch, the favorite pas- 
sage of the Baptists. This passage of Scripture is 
often quoted to prove that dipping is the only valid 
mode of baptism. Acts viii. 38: "And he com- 
manded the chariot to stand still: and they went 
down both into the water, both Philip and the 
Eunuch; and he baptized him." This was done 
between Jerusalem and Gaza. It was a desert coun- 
try, where there was not much water. The Eunuch 
was returning from Jerusalem, where he had heard 
wonderful things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, and 
he was reading the prophet Isaiah, to see whether 
those things were true according to the Scripture. 
"The place of Scripture which he read was this: 
He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like 
a lamb, dumb before his shearer, so he opened not 
his mouth: in his humiliation his judgment was 
taken away: and who shall declare his generation? 
for his life is taken from the earth. ' ' When Philip 
came to him, and was received into the chariot, the 
Eunuch asked him, ' ' Of whom speaketh the prophet 
this?" Philip instructed him that it was Jesus the 
Son of God. Then having expressed his faith in the 
Son of God, the Eunuch desired to be baptized. 
* * And as they went on their way they came to a cer- 
tain water; and the Eunuch said, " See, here is 
water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Now, 



WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. 85 

what idea did the Eunuch have of baptism, and 
whence did he get it? The Eunuch had just read 
this passage, which stands near the one quoted: 
" So shall He (the Messiah) sprinkle many nations, " 
Is. Hi. 15. He had therefore the Jewish mode of 
sprinkling for purification in his mind. When he 
thought of baptism, he thought of its administration 
by sprinkling. 

Besides, the expression, '* They came unto a cer- 
tain water," proves nothing as to the quantity or 
depth of the water, and therefore nothing in favor 
of dipping. " Epi ti hudor," ''unto a certain 
water,'' may be as correctly, and even more so, 
translated to some water, or to a little water. «* Ti " 
has sometimes a diminutive sense, and so here. 
Again, in the phrase, ' ' See, here is water, ' ' the trans- 
lators have supplied the words here is. This is known 
to the reader, because they are italicized. In the or- 
iginal, however, we have nothing more than ' ' Idou, 
hudor, " * ' See, water ! ' ' This is the language of 
surprise; the Eunuch did not expect to find any 
water in that desert place. ** See, a little water f* 
" what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Again, for 
the prepositions into and out of we could substitute 
to and from, without doing violence to the Greek 
text. Accordingly, Then " they went down (from 
the chariot) both to or for the water (the one as ad- 
ministrator and the other as candidate), both Philip 
and the Eunuch; and He baptized him. "And 
when they were come up from the water," etc. 
This is all the Greek demands. 



86 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

Is there anything here said about being dipped 
under the water with face forward, three times, ac- 
cording to the faith and practice of the German Bap- 
tists, or once backwards according to the faith and 
practice of the English Baptists? Nothing at all 
about such modes. 

Besides, if the phrase, " They went down both 
into the water, ' ' means to dip under the water, one 
was as deep in as the other. But this proves too 
much, therefore proves nothing, according to a rule 
in logic. 

But the apostles baptized where there was not 
much water. Let me call your earnest attention to 
the more important passages bearing on this point. 

In the Acts of the Apostles ii. 41, we read: '* Then 
they that gladly receiyed the word were baptized : 
and the same day there were added unto them about 
three thousand souls. ' ' Where and how were the 
"three thousand" baptized? It must have been 
performed, according to the nature of the case, as 
set forth in this passage, " the same day," at Jeru- 
salem, where there was neither river nor creek. 
For at the time of Pentecost it w^as summer in 
Judea, rains were scarce, brooks dried up, and noth- 
ing remained near Jerusalem but the pool of Siloam, 
in which it would have been wholly impracticable to 
have dipped so vast a multitude, the same day, in 
the space of six hours, from nine till three o'clock, 
when the morning and evening prayers were had in 
the temple. Compare Acts ii. 15 with Acts iii. i. 



WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. 87 

But suppose the morning services, on the day of 
Pentecost, were somewhat protracted, say from nine 
till twelve, a very short time indeed, considering the 
importance and the solemnity of the occasion, and 
at their close, the apostles with the ** three thou- 
sand" converts, at once repaired to the pool of 
Siloam, whose waters were reached by a descent of 
more than twenty steps, is it reasonable to conclude 
that the apostles, with the seventy added, if need 
be, could have dipped so vast a multitude in the 
space of time remaining until the ninth hour, when 
the pious Jews, now become Christians, were wont 
to go up to the temple to pray? This is a point 
which is beset with wonderful difficulties, if dipping 
is required ; but one very easily adjusted, if sprink- 
ling or pouring was used. 

It is therefore highly probable that the first con- 
verts to the gospel, on the founding of the Christian 
church, were not baptized by dipping, but by sprink- 
ling or pouring. 

Neither does the account of the first converts to 
Christianity among the Gentiles favor dipping (Acts 
X. 47). 

While Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and 
his household and to many others, who had assem- 
bled with them on the same occasion, " the Holy 
Ghost fell on all those who heard the word. ' ' Then 
Peter said, " Can any man forbid water, that these 
should not be baptized, which have received the 
Holy Ghost as well as we?" This implies that the 



88 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

water was brought to these converts, with which they 
were baptized either by pouring or sprinkling. 
This example would be sufficient to establish the 
mode of baptism among all Gentile churches. The 
apostle Peter was evidently no immersionist. 

We have now reached, in our discussion, the cita- 
del of the Baptist system, which is the figurative 
use of the word, baptizo. It is sometimes compared 
to a burying^ therefore it is settled by Baptists to 
mean dip and nothing but dip. The principal pas- 
sage brought up to defend the figurative use of the 
word, is found in Rom. vi. 3-7, and reads thus: 
' * Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized 
into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? 
Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into 
death : that like as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
should walk in newness of life. For if we have been 
planted together in the likeness of His death, we 
shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection: 
knowing this, that our old man is crucified with 
Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that 
henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is 
dead is freed from sin. ' ' 

The only text in the New Testament strictly par- 
allel with this is found in Col. ii. 11, 12, and reads: 
' * In whom (Christ) also ye are circumcised with the 
circumcision made without hands, in putting off the 
body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of 
Christ: buried with Him in baptism, wherein also 



WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. 89 

ye are raised with Him througli tlie faith of the ope- 
ration of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. ' ' 

Let us take up these passages in the order quoted, 
and candidly investigate them, and abide by their 
teachings. 

We turn back, then, to Rom. vi. 3-7. First, of 
what was the apostle speaking? Evidently of some- 
thing well understood by the Romans. He was 
speaking about sin and grace ^ the two great points 
around which revolve all the teachings of the New 
Testament. In the preceding chapter we find this 
statement : * ' Where sin abounded, grace did much 
more abound." "If so," says an objector to the 
apostle's doctrine, " may we not continue in sin, 
that grace may abound?" To this the apostle re- 
plies: " God forbid. How shall we, that are dead 
to sin, live any longer therein?" He then goes on 
to show how this death to sin is effected. He says 
that our death to sin is effected by our being bap- 
tized into Jesus Christ — baptized into His death. 
How, then, are we baptized into Jesus Christ's death? 
Is it by water or by the Spirit? Who will answer.^ 
Let St. Paul himself answer, as he does in i Cor. 
xii. 13, where he says: ** For by one Spirit are we 
all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have 
been all made to drink into one Spirit. ' ' And in the 
27th verse of this same chapter, he also tells us who 
this one body^ into which we have been baptized, is: 
** Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in 



90 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

particular. " We have the same instruction in Eph. 
i. 15-23; Gal. iii. 27; John iii. 5. 

Therefore by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, by 
the regenerating, justifying, sanctifying grace of 
God, are we as Christians baptized into Jesus Christ, 
baptized into His death, into the merits of His death, 
which He suffered on the cross, to which He carried 
our sins in His own body. See Rom. viii. 34 ; 2 Cor. 
V. 21; Eph. ii. 16; I Pet. ii. 21-24. These passages 
show that we are made partakers of the merits of 
Christ's death and sufEerings by the power of the 
Spirit of God, who works faith in us through His 
word. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is really 
Christ's baptism; for He said to His disciples, *' John 
truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized 
with the Holy Ghost, * And John himself cried and 
said, '* The same is He which baptizeth with the 
Holy Ghost." 

For St. Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, 
which is implied in the passage of Scripture under 
consideration, requires not only that we believe in 
Christ Jesus as He is presented to us in the histor- 
ical evidences, which go to establish in our minds 
the certainty of His death and resurrection, but also 
that we experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; 
the former as-the ground of our justification, and the 
latter as the sure token of it, and as the earnest of 
our future inheritance. As the same apostle says of 
the Ephesians: ** In whom ye also trusted, after 
that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your 



WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. 9 1 

salvation: in wliom also, after that ye believed, ye 
were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which 
is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemp- 
tion of the purchased possession, unto the praise of 
His glory." For the apostle teaches us, that we 
enter into the justified state before God by faith in 
our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the token by which , 
we may assure our hearts of the fact, is the love of 
God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost 
who is given unto us. But the Spirit of God dwell- 
ing in us as Christians, the apostle shows further on 
in the Epistle, to be the Spirit of Christ, or Christ 
Himself. This Spirit is our life because of the right- 
eousness into which He has baptized us. Hence, 
the passage : ' * But if the Spirit of Him that raised 
up Jesus from the dead dwell in you. He that raised 
up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your 
mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you. ' ' 
This being the condition of the justified man, he is 
delivered from sin, the law, death, the divine wrath, 
and is made alive unto God, all which is predicated 
on what Christ has become to us through faith. This 
being dead to sin through the merits of Christ, while 
we are in this body of sin, is not to be taken in the 
sense of a personal righteousness at once grown up 
in the soul ; but it is effected by and through the 
imputed righteousness of faith, which is secured by 
the power of the Holy Ghost through whom we are 
baptized into the death of Christ, and thus joined to 
Christ and associated with Him in a mysterious 



92 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

manner in the merits of His death and resurrection ; 
that we might thus both die in H'im unto sin, and be 
made alive unto God through His glorified presence 
in our hearts. 

The apostle compares this being dead to sin in 
Christ to a burial, in which the body of sin is de- 
stroyed. That is, all our sins, whether past, present, 
or future, are so sunk into oblivion by the baptism 
of the Spirit, that their sight is never again to be 
expected in all the ages of eternity. For he that is 
thus dead with Christ is freed from sin. 

The inference therefore is that if we be thus dead 
with Christ ; thus crucified with Him, and associated 
with Him in His death; as Christ came forth from 
that death unto sin, and was raised again by the 
glory of the Father, His presence in our hearts is 
the divine assurance, that we shall also live with 
Him in a glorified state forever. Our eternal life, 
our glorified state, is predicated on this death and 
union Avith Christ. ' ' If we be dead with Christ, we 
believe that we shall also live with Him. ' ' For the 
justified man is now, while he lives in this world, in 
a state of death with Christ as to the o/d 7nan, with 
which he must be necessarily associated as long as 
he lives in this world. 

With this explanation let us read the passage 
again : * ' Know ye not, that so many of us as were 
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His 
death? Therefore we are buried with Him by bap- 
tism into death : that like as Christ was raised up 



WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. 93 

from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so 
we also should walk in newness of life. ' ' The pas- 
sage in Col. ii. ii, 12, teaches substantially the same 
truth; but throws additional light upon the subject 
of the resurrection of the body. 

Now, our Baptist friends seem to see in these pas- 
sages an illustration of how ancient baptism was 
performed ; because the baptism of the Spirit is in 
these compared with a burial. The dipping of the 
whole body into water, would therefore prefigure 
the death and burial of our old man ; and the emer- 
sion^ the lifting of the body out of water, would pre- 
figure the resurrection of the new man. This is 
indeed a beautiful figure; and they say that the 
apostle must have had his mind's eye on baptism by 
dipping. Not at all, but there is mere allusion, by 
way of figure, to the priinary signification of baptize^ 
to put into some permanent state or condition, which 
is not and cannot be illustrated by ritual or water 
baptism ; but which is and must be effected by the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost. For the Scripture term 
baptism always includes both the symbol element 
and the Holy Ghost. 

Therefore all those persons wha are baptized into 
Christ by pouring or sprinkling are buried with 
Him in baptism, which is implied in the wo^rd " us " 
in the text. The word *' us " here includes the 
writer of this epistle and the persons written to. 
The former was St. Paul, and the latter the church 
at Rome. How were these baptiz.ed? It cannot be 



94 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

proven that they were baptized by dipping. We 
have an account of Paul's baptism in Acts ix. 17, 18, 
19: " And Ananias went his way, and entered into 
the house; and putting his hands on him said, 
Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared 
unto thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, 
that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled 
with the Holy Ghost And immediately there fell 
from his eyes as it had been scales : and he received 
sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And 
when he had received meat, he was strengthened." 
It is seen from the narrative that Paul was baptized 
in the house, the place where he had been lying sick 
and weak for three days. " He was three days 
without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. ' ' Ac- 
cording to the narrative he was first baptized, and 
then "he received meat, and was strengthened." 
He evidently did not leave the house until he was 
baptized and fed. His baptism must therefore have 
been by pouring or sprinkling, which was the mode 
of consecration. 

So also with the baptism of the Roman Christians. 
Who founded the Church at Rome? It is highly 
probable that it was founded by the * * strangers of 
Rome, ' ' who were present and converted among the 
' * three thousand ' ' on the day of Pentecost, and as 
soon as they had returned to Rome, they at once 
founded the Christian Church in that great city. 
On this point Conybeare and Howson give the fol- 
lowing: '* The name of the original founder of the 



WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. 95 

Roman Church has not been preserved to us by his- 
tory, nor even celebrated by tradition. This is a re- 
markable fact, when we consider how soon the 
Church of Rome attained great eminence in the 
Christian world, both from its members and from 
the influence of its metropolitan rank. Had any of 
the apostles laid its foundation, the fact could 
scarcely fail to have been recorded. It is therefore 
probable that it was formed in the first instance of 
private Christians converted in Palestine, who had 
come from the eastern parts of the empire to reside 
at Rome, or who had brought back Christianity with 
them, from some of their periodical visits to Jerusa- 
lem, as the ' strangers of Rome, ' from the great 
Pentecost. ' ' But we have already seen that ' ' the 
three thousand " converts on the day of Pentecost 
were not baptized by dipping, but by pouring or 
sprinkling. Therefore it is evident that when St. 
Paul writes to the Church at Rome, ' ' Know ye not, 
that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ," etc., baptism by pouring or sprinkling 
buries us with Christ into His death. If Paul and 
the " strangers of Rome " were buried with Christ 
by their baptism into His death, w^hich we see was 
performed by pouring or sprinkling, why should not 
our baptism accomplish the same end? — especially 
when we know by experience that we have been 
baptized by the Holy Ghost, which is evident by our 
fruits of the Spirit. 

Let us then, before proceeding to the main part of 



96 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

our argnment, try our Baptist friends by their own 
principles, and let us see whether we can find in 
their own practice an illustration of their principles. 

Let us first try them on immersion. Their teach- 
ing is that baptism is immersion, and nothing else is. 
The primary meaning of the word baptizo, as we 
have shown from Dr. Dale, means mersion^ drown- 
ings sinkings placing a body in a permanent condition 
or state^ whence it is not to be taken, no provision 
being made in the word itself for the recovering of 
the body from that condition or state. Thus the 
rush and sea- weeds of Aristotle were buried by bap- 
tism, when the full tide overwhelmed them; thus 
the persons mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, inclosed 
by the river, perished, being classically baptized; 
thus the Antediluvians were buried in the baptism 
of Noah; and thus Pharaoh and his army were 
buried in the baptism of the children of Israel. Let 
us hold fast to this idea of burying in baptism ; it is 
a good one with reference to the Spirit, if it is rather 
inconvenient to put it into bodily practice. By the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit we are buried, as it were, 
put into a permanent condition of death unto sin, 
which is no more to have dominion over us forever. 

You perceive, therefore, that if any would desire 
to be baptized according to the primary ^ classical 
idea of the word, which is contended to be the basis 
of the figure in the text, it would be necessary to 
have the water poured upon them until they would 
be covered or overwhelmed like the rush or sea- 



WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. 97 

weeds of Aristotle, or the persons mentioned by 
Diodonis Siculus, or the other examples. 

We do not believe that any person has ever been 
voluntarily baptized according to the primary mean- 
ing of the Greek word baptizo ; but it is not required, 
according to our view of baptism, since we are 
guided altogether by the secondary, which is the 
scriptural use of the word, which is accomplished by 
pouring or sprinkling. 

But why will our Baptist friends require baptism 
by immersion, in its classical, primary sense, which 
they say means immersion and nothing else, when 
they themselves refuse to baptize literally? A rule, 
which they themselves find inconvenient to carry 
out, and which would so beautifully illustrate our 
text — buried with Him in baptism — they ought not 
to impose on others. It reminds us of what the 
Saviour said to the Pharisees of old: " They say, 
and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and 
grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoul- 
ders ; but they themselves will not move them with 
one of their fingers. ' ' 

Let us next try them on dipping. The word Tun- 
ker comes from the German tunken^ to dip. We do 
not use the word Tunker as a term of reproach, no 
more than the word Lutheran is used nowadays by 
our opponents as such. These are our names re- 
spectively, and we must bear them. The principle 
of the Tunkers or German Baptists seems to be dip- 
ping. With them dipping is baptizing and baptizing 
7 



98 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

is dipping. But what is it to dip ? Evidently, to let 
down gently into some fluid, and to draw out again ; 
this double action is implied in the word dip^ but not 
in the word baptizo^ as we have proved. To thrust 
down violently is to plunge. To baptize a candidate 
by dipping, therefore, would be to put him wholly 
and gently down into the water, and to lift him out 
again. This then is the correct principle of dipping. 
To this those who advocate that baptism is dipping 
and nothing else should hold ; that is, the practice 
and the principle should correspond. But let us see 
how this principle is carried out. The candidate 
wades into the water, it may be up to his waist, then 
kneels, leaving his shoulders and head exposed, 
which the baptizer, while he repeats the baptismal 
formula, thrusts or plunges into the water three 
times. Then the candidate is helped up, and walks 
out of the water. This is called dippings baptism by 
dipping, illustrating Christ's burial in the sepulchre 
three days. But that candidate was not dipped, let 
alone buried ; for only his head and shoulders were 
baptized by plunging. But if baptism is dipping 
and nothing else, and if dipping is necessary to sal- 
vation, then the whole body should be dipped ; other- 
wise the head and shoulders only will be saved. We 
think that those who lay down the principle that 
baptism is dipping and nothing else is, should prac- 
tice the same themselves. To dip a candidate would 
require four or six men, who would take up the can- 
didate, carry him into the water, and let his whole 



WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. 99 

body down gently into the water, and lift him out 
again. Such a person would be really dipped. But 
some one might say, " This would be very incon- 
venient. ' ' No matter ; if the principle that baptism 
is dipping and nothing else is correct, then it must 
be carried out, should it be as difficult as to pluck out 
the right eye or to cut off the right hand. 

If the four or six preachers required to dip a per- 
son could not be procured, a platform might be 
erected, and by means of ropes and pulleys the work 
could be done expeditiously. The practicability of 
the thing has been demonstrated. Eunomius and 
his disciples, we are told, did ' ' dip into water the 
whole body," by the help of ropes and pulleys. 
The thing has been done, and therefore can be done. 
But Eunomius was an Arian. 

If Baptists contend that it is a divine command to 
bury a candidate by baptism, or to dip him, is it not 
marvelous that they have never, in one instance, for 
three hundred years, obeyed the command? They 
are therefore not consistent with their principles. 
We do not hold that the mode is essential to baptism ; 
and therefore we are at least consistent in our prac- 
tice with our principles. 

We are, therefore, wholly unable to see, in the 
modern mode of baptizing, an illustration of the 
figure employed by St. Paul in the portions of Scrip- 
ture under consideration. It is because the figure 
employed is based on the primary, classical use of 
the word baptizo^ which belongs to the class of words 



lOO BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

represented by bury^ drown, smk, whelm; while 
bapto belongs to that other class which is represented 
by plunge, dive, dip, but especially agrees with dip 
in bringing its object out of the element into which 
it has been briefly and superficially introduced. But 
bapto, we reiterate, is never used in any passage of 
Scripture in which the ordinance of baptism is men- 
tioned ; the word used by the Holy Ghost is invari- 
ably baptizo, employed in its secondary sense, to 
wash for ceremonial purification, which is scriptur- 
ally done by pouring or sprinkling, to bring an ob- 
ject into a new state or condition, and used only in 
its primary sense, to bury, drown, or whelm, by way 
of figure, as in the passage under consideration, to 
illustrate the permanent condition or state into which 
the Holy Spirit puts us in Christ, which could not be 
illustrated by ritual baptism, unless by surreptitiously 
reading into the word the meaning of bapto, to dip, 
which we will not allow by subjection; no, not for 
an hour, that the truth of the gospel may continue 
with us. 

When we are baptized into Jesus Christ by the 
Holy Ghost, we are to have as little to do with the 
world, the flesh, and the devil, or sin in general, of 
which these are the representatives, as the buried 
dead or drowned have to do with the affairs of the 
living. The baptism of the Holy Ghost puts us into 
a permanent condition of death unto sin. We thus 
become like a seed planted in the soil, or buried in 
the ground, which is no more expected to come to 



WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. lOI 

light, which must die before it is quickened (i Cor. 
XV. :^6) ; but we wait for a new plant, a new life, 
"first the blade, then the ear, after that the full 
com in the ear," Mark iv. 28. 

But suppose again, for the sake of argument, we 
admit that the baptism of the Holy Ghost, of which 
water or ritual baptism is the sign, is like a burying^ 
how will that prove that baptism is dipping and 
nothing else? For we can also prove from the holy- 
Scriptures that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is 
likened to pourings sprinklings and washing. Having 
proved these points, we might turn round and say, 
with as much arrogance as our Baptist friends, that 
baptism is pourings or sprinklings or washijtgs and 
nothing else. We might also draw on our imagina- 
tion, as they do, to help us out in this way : ' * See 
the filth that is washed away by washing, or pour- 
ing, or even by constant gentle sprinkling; and be- 
hold how beautifully white the garment is becoming 
by this process ! ' ' The filth washed away might be 
made to represent our old sins, the old man; and 
the clean garment the new man. This figure is ac- 
tually employed by St. Paul in Eph. iv. 25-27, to 
represent the baptism of the Holy Ghost, where he 
says; " Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ 
also loved the church, and gave Himself for it ; that 
He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing 
of water by the word, that He might present it to 
Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrin- 
kle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy 
and without blemish. * * 



I02 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

Let US therefore see further where the baptism of 
the Holy Ghost is compared to sprinklings pouring^ 
or washing. 

Let us take sprinkling first. In Isaiah Hi. 15, it is 
said : " So shall he sprinkle many nations ; the kings 
shall shut their mouths at him : for that which had 
not been told them shall they see ; and that which 
they had not heard shall they consider. ' ' Of whom 
does the prophet speak this? Evidently of Christ. 
The prophet here foretells that when Christ would 
come, he would purify, cleanse, make holy many na- 
tions by sprinkling them. And this idea of purifying 
by sprinkling is a New Testament idea, used by St. 
Peter and by St. Paul, i Pet. i. 2, " Unto obedience 
and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. " Heb. 
ix. 13, 14, " For if the blood of bulls and of goats, 
and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much 
more shall the blood of Christ, who through the 
eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, 
purge our conscience from dead works to serve the 
living God?" 

In Joel ii. 28, we read : *' And it shall come to pass 
afterward that I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
flesh, ' ' etc. If you will now turn to the Acts of the 
Apostles, second chapter, you will find a fulfillment 
of this prophecy, on the day of Pentecost, when the 
Holy Ghost, fell upon the apostles and others asso- 
ciated with them, "and there appeared unto them 
cloven tongues like as of. fire, and it sat upon each of 



WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. IO3 

them." To one looking on, would not the sight 
have been like drops of fire falling on the heads of 
the apostles? Here we have an ocular demonstration 
of the mode of Christian baptism, which is adapted 
to all climes and all peoples. The work did not stop 
with the apostles ; but the multitude came together — 
"Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and dwellers 
in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in 
Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphilia, in Egypt, 
and in the parts of Lybia about Cyrene, and strang- 
ers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Ara- 
bians ' ' — all hearing the apostles speaking in all these 
diversified languages the wonderful works of God, 
and all amazed and in doubt, saying one to another, 
" What meaneth this?" They were informed that 
it was a fulfillment of the prediction of the prophet 
Joel; and convicted of their sins, and pricked to the 
heart by the Holy Ghost, they cried out, ** Men and 
brethren, what shall we do ? " They were directed 
to repent, and to be baptized every one of them in 
the nam^e of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
and were assured that they should receive the gift of 
the Holy Ghost. In all this we have an illustration 
of the Messiah sprinkling many nations. With this 
prophecy in their minds, so powerfully illustrated in 
their own spiritual experience, and the' impractica- 
bility of baptizing all these people in one day, three 
thousand, by immersion or dipping, it is highly prob- 
able that the apostles baptized them by pouring or 
sprinkling. At least the baptism of the Spirit is 



I04 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

compared by figure to pouring out water on an ob- 
ject, which was the point to be proved. 

Again, in Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27, we have a beautiful 
Scripture bearing on the same point : ' * Then will I 
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: 
from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will 
I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, 
and a new spirit will I put within you : and I will 
take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I 
will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my 
Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my stat- 
utes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. " 
Turning to Heb. x. 22, we find the New Testament 
version of this idea : * * Let us draw near with a true 
heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts 
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies 
washed with pure water." Here the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit is compared to sprinklings and the bap- 
tism of water to washing ; a correspondence between 
the sign and the thing signified. 

Now, in view of all these proofs that the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost is figuratively spoken of as a 
sprinkling, pouring, and washing, might we not just 
as well, and with equal propriety, turn round and 
say, in as arrogant a manner as our Baptist friends, 
that baptism is sprinkling^ or pourings or washings 
and nothing else ; for these are the figures which the 
Holy Ghost has employed to illustrate his work in 
our hearts? But this we will not do; for baptism 
does not consist in the mere mode, whether sprink- 



WHERE BAPTISMS WERE PERFORMED. I05 

ling, or pouring, or dipping. But baptism signifies 
the new relation or condition into which we are 
brought by this sacrament ; which may be expressed 
by pouring, sprinkling, or dipping. For he is not a 
Christian who is one outwardly; neither is that bap- 
tism which is outward on the body : but he is a Chris- 
tian who is one inwardly ; and baptism is that of the 
heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose 
praise is not of men, but of God. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

BAPTISM IN CHURCH HISTORY. 

The citadel of the Baptist system being now tak-en, 
let us next turn our attention briefly to church his- 
tory. This is the last outpost upon which the Bap- 
tist system relies, but which must fall with the 
citadel , for if immersion or dipping cannot be estab- 
lished by clear Scripture arguments, it is not likely 
that church history, with its diversified customs, can 
help their cause very materially or change our 
position. 

We admit, without the least detriment to our posi- 
tion, that it can be shown from church history that 
what is called baptism by immersion was extensively 
practiced in ancient times in the warm climates ; but 
baptism by sprinkling and pouring can also be proved 
from the same source. From the time of Tertullian, 
about the beginning of the third century, while the 
preaching of the gospel was confined to the warmer 
climates in which it took its rise, baptism by immer- 
sion or dipping may have been the general rule, 
while baptism by sprinkling or pouring may have 
been the exception, and substituted in cases of 
urgent necessity, such as sickness; but toward the 
(loO) 



BAPTISM IN CHURCH HISTORY. 107 

close of the third century baptism by sprinkling or 
pouring became the general rule, and baptism by 
immersion or dipping became the exception. And 
for this change there was good reason ; for by that 
time the preaching of the gospel and the founding of 
the church extended into the colder regions of the 
globe, and the children born in Christian families, 
and regarded as belonging to the infirm, were bap- 
tized. In all this we see the infinite wisdom of 
Christ, that He did not make the efiicacy of the sac- 
rament of baptism depend on the mere mode of its 
administration. He has commanded His gospel to 
be preached in all the world, and to all classes and 
conditions of men; and to make disciples of the sick 
and the afflicted by baptism, as well as to make dis- 
ciples of those who are well by baptism. If you 
choose to take the latter, and to baptize them by 
immersion or dipping, you have no right to refuse 
the sick and the infirm baptism by sprinkling or 
pouring. The ancient church did not refuse bap- 
tism to the sick and the infirm by these modes. 
Take, therefore, your church history and follow it ; 
for church history allows both modes as valid bap- 
tism. 

But there is a gap in church history between Ter- 
tullian and the apostles, which our Baptist friends 
have never been able to fill up with their mode of 
immersion or dipping their candidates three times 
face forward or once backward under water. No 
Baptist has been able to prove from any historical 



Io8 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

facts and authors found in that gap of church history 
that trine dipping or immersion was practiced from 
the time of Tertullian back to the days of the apos- 
tles. Justin Martyr, who wrote forty years after the 
death of St. John, describes primitive baptism as a 
wasJiing with water. But what consolation is there 
in this for trine dipping, or immersing the candidate 
under water three times face forward, or once back- 
ward? 

The primitive church evidently regarded the mode 
of baptism as non-essential. In reference to such 
things St. Paul has said : * * Let every man be fully 
persuaded in his own mind. ' ' And again : * * For 
the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but 
righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 
For he that in these things serveth Christ is accept- 
able to God, and approved of men. ' ' 

From all that has now been said, we conclude that 
the Baptist theory, that baptism is immersion or 
dipping and nothing else, cannot be proved: neither 
by John's baptism, which was not Christian baptism, 
nor by the Greek word baptize^ which is the only 
word used by the Holy Ghost in speaking of the sac- 
rament, nor by the places where Scripture baptism 
was administered, nor by the figurative use of the 
word, nor satisfactorily hy church history. 



CHAPTER IX. 

NATURE ANI> DESIGN OF BAPTISM, 

The nature and design of baptism will help us to 
a right understanding of this sacrament by showing 
us that it does not consist in the mere mode of its 
administration. 

What then is baptism? Luther says: " Baptism 
is not mere water ; but it is that water which the or- 
dinance of God enjoins, and which is connected with 
God's word. For without the word, the water is 
mere water, and no baptism ; but with the word of 
God it is a baptism, that is, a merciful water of life, 
and a laver of regeneration in the Holy Ghost : as 
St. Paul says to Titus, * ' Not by works of righteous- 
ness which we have done, but according to His mercy 
He has saved us, by the washing of regeneration, 
and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He shed on 
us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 
that being justified by His grace, we should be made 
heirs according to the hope of eternal life. ' ' 

St. Peter says: " Baptism is the answer of a good 

conscience toward God. ' ' When our conscience is 

cleansed by faith in Christ from dead works to serve 

the living God, such faith finds its expression or an- 

(109) 



no BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

swer in baptism. Baptism is a constant answer or 
expression of faith in Christ. It is therefore the seal 
of the righteousness of faith. That is, that the 
righteousness of Christ is counted or reckoned to us 
through faith; because such faith includes Christ 
and has Him present. Baptism is therefore a con- 
stant witness that we are justified by Christ. It is a 
perpetual sign of this great truth. 

The nature and design of baptism must therefore 
be sought in its essential things, not in the mere 
mode of its administration. To seek the nature and 
design of baptism in the mode of its administration 
is materialistic in its tendency. We might as well 
say, as some even do, that the soul of man consists 
in the mode of his brain's operations, as to say that 
baptism consists in the mode of its administration. 
The essential elements in baptism are the water, the 
word of God, and the divine command. The out- 
ward part of baptism is washing with water, and any 
mode of using water, which preserves the idea of 
washing, may be regarded as a proper mode; and 
consequently immersion is not essential to baptism, 
because it is not essential to washing. 

Baptism is an appeal to the heart and conscience 
through the senses, besides the ordinary method of 
directly addressing the truth to the ear. Baptism is 
the word in a symbol. The symbol expresses a 
necessity of our nature The truth would assume a 
visible representation, and the word would clothe 
itself in the garb of visible things. The essential 



NATURE AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. Ill 

word Himself assumed a visible form. " The word 
was made flesh, and dwelt among us. " "A body 
hast thou prepared me. ' ' Our whole life is inter- 
penetrated by symbols. The thoughts of our minds, 
the tendencies of our hearts, these all seek a symbol- 
ical expression. Why not also the religious life? 
No divine service can stand without symbols. The 
whole cultus is a holy symbol. And do we not un- 
consciously introduce into our whole lives the sym- 
bol? When we move our hand, when we nod our 
head and lift it up, when we bend our knees, it is all 
a symbolical, a sensible expression of that which is 
unseen. W^e love to be surrounded by symbols. 
We have made the cross the universal symbol of 
Christianity. Every picture of the Redeemer is for 
us a symbol. In all science there is something sym- 
bolical ; for it seeks to set forth the invisible world 
of spirit in visible form. The higher the subject it 
would represent, so much the more will the science 
become a manifestation of the thing. But the painter 
will never succeed in painting into the countenance 
of Jesus Christ the full revelation of grace and truth. 
All true science therefore contains something sym- 
bolical. It thus becomes a leader to conduct us out 
of the visible into the invisible. All the parables of 
the Saviour are built on this principle. We need 
such helps to bring us out of the carnal into the 
spiritual.. No religion is without symbols: also 
not the Christian. * ' But, ' ' as Dr. Luthardt says, 
** higher than the symbol of the thing stands the 



112 BAPTISM AND FEET- WASHING. 

symbol of the action. The concentrated symbol is 
symbolical action. In every kind of religion we find 
symbolical actions; the Christian religion also has 
them. They are involuntary. When I bless an- 
other, I lay involuntarily my hand on his head. The 
cultus is a system of symbolical actions: also the 
Christian. When these fail, it becomes bald and 
cold. They bespeak a necessity of our nature. But 
there is a difference between the Christian religion 
and that which preceded it. This was the religion 
of prophecy, that is, the religion of fulfillment. The 
symbols of the Christian religion do not point to 
some future import, but they speak to us of some- 
thing present, and the highest contain what they 
symbolize. These are the sacraments. The sacra- 
ments are symbolical actions, but they are fulfilled 
symbols ; they contain the things which they specify. ' ' 
We reckon only two sacraments. Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper. Before Jesus departed from His 
disciples He instituted Christian baptism, as the sac- 
rament through which all those who were willing 
should be received into the number of His disciples. 
Christ's commission literally interpreted is this: " Go 
ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, in 
that ye baptize them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and in that ye 
teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you." Baptism is therefore the sacra- 
ment of initiation into the Christian Church. The 
outer form of baptism is not new. It was connected 



NATURE AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. II3 

with divers washings and former ceremonies, as we 
have already seen. In the Old Testament there 
were washings and ceremonies and purifyings; and 
John the Baptist made use of water-baptism as a 
symbol of repentance and remission of sins and as a 
preparation for entrance into the kingdom of God. 
But Christ implanted into this form a new significa- 
tion. The content of this He expressed in the for- 
mula of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which is to be 
employed in this transaction. 

By baptism we are to be received into fellowship 
with the Triune God and His salvation. The central 
point of salvation, as a revelation, however, is the 
atonement made by the cross, the forgiveness of sins. 
This is what is signified by baptism. It is a symbol 
of grace. The symbol lies in the elements combined 
with it, and in the transaction itself. On this point 
Luther says : ' ' We divide baptism into three distinct 
parts, which are the water, the word, and the com- 
mand or order of God. Thus we must not only 
regard the water like other water, but the word also, 
which is the word of God, in or with the water; andi 
thirdly, the will and power of God, or His command' 
and institution. These are the parts which belong' 
to the entire nature, and to the proper definition of ^ 
baptism. And they should be viewed in immediate - 
connection with each other, and not be severed and 
separated, since in union with each other they con- 
stitute a correct baptism. 

" For in order that it may be^ and be called o, sacra- 
8 



114 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

ment, it is necessary first of all that some external, 
tangible sign or substance be employed, through 
which God deals visibly with us, so that we may be 
assured of His operation. For without some exter- 
nal sign or medium, God will not operate upon us, 
merely by deeply secret inspiration, or a peculiar 
divine revelation. But the external work and sign 
will effect and accomplish nothing at all if His word 
is not added, through which this sign becomes 
mighty, and we perceive what God is accomplishing 
with us by this sign. But the divine command also 
must be united to both these, in order that we may 
become assured of His will and work in this sign 
and word. These three parts, accordingly, I most 
carefully discriminate. ' ' 

Water is the means of purification, and the cere- 
mony of washing is the ceremony of purification. 
Baptism signifies purification from sins. It signifies 
not merely that we shall purify ourselves, but that 
God will purify us. 

But it not only signifies this ; it also conveys what 
it signifies. It is a means of grace. It is the ground 
of a Christian life, which must begin in the grace of 
God. The Christian life is a life of communion with 
God. The hindrance to this communion is the debt 
of sin. What we first need, in order to this commu- 
nion, is the forgiveness of our sins. Baptism is the 
sacrament of purification of the conscience from sins, 
with the end of uniting it with God. The bond of 
connection between the purified conscience and God 



NATURE AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. II5 

is the Holy Ghost. ** The Spirit Himself beareth 
witness with our spirit that we are the children of 
God. " * * Beloved, if our hearts condemn us not, 
then have we confidence toward God. And whatso- 
ever we ask we receive of Him, because we keep His 
commandments, and do those things that are pleas- 
ing in His sight." The Holy Ghost cleanses our 
conscience from dead works, and unites us in fellow- 
ship with the Father and the Son. Baptism is there- 
fore the covenant of a good conscience with God. 
Baptism is therefore designed to teach the moral im- 
purities of man, and the necessity and the insurance 
of his cleansing by the sanctifying influences of the 
Holy Spirit through His Word. 

Moreover, it is designed to sustain and perpetuate 
the Church throughout all ages. Without the sacra- 
ments the Church cannot be perpetuated in the world. 
Do away w^ith symbols of grace, and you will soon 
do away with the internal realities of religion. The 
sacraments and rites of the Old Dispensation were 
adapted to minds far less elevated than to those of 
the New. Hence the number of ordinances of the 
Old as compared with those of the New. The most 
uncompromising and successful enemies of Chris- 
tianity have always aimed at the destruction of ex- 
ternal symbols. 

Baptism is necessary to salvation, because the 
grace of God is offered to us through it. That is, 
baptism is necessary, not merely because it is neces- 
sary for us to do what God commands us to do, in 



Il6 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

which sense every commandment of God is the 
medium of divine grace, not merely because he en- 
joins it, but because in^ with and under it this grace 
is offered. " For by grace are ye saved through 
faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of 
God: not of works, lest any man should boast." 
Baptism is meant to point out something distinct- 
ively on God's side responsive to faith on our side 
to our salvation. In other words, that as in our 
faith we go forth toward God, so in holy baptism 
God comes forth to us, and offers in it to our faith 
that which imparts salvation. He meets us in our 
baptism to assure our weak consciences of the for- 
giveness of our sins, and of eternal life through our 
Lord Jesus Christ. He shows us in our baptism that 
the application of the blood of Christ, and the influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit, are necessary to prepare us 
for heaven, and that salvation is here present and 
here offered to us through free grace. 

The first question is. What grace is offered to us 
in baptism? We reply: " Except a man be born of 
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God. " * * For ye are all the children of 
God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you 
as have been baptized into Christ have put on 
Christ." The grace of justification, "have put on 
Christ," is offered to us in our baptism. Besides, 
the grace of a renewed heart and holy life, the grace 
of sanctification, is assured to us in our baptism. 
" Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized 



NATURE AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. II 7 

into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? 
Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into 
death : that like as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
should walk in newness of life. " * * Buried, ' ' i. e. , 
utterly sundered from sin as a buried man is from 
the living world. We are put into a permanent 
state or condition of rest from our old sins as per- 
taining to the conscience. ** And for this cause He 
is the mediator of the New Testament, that by 
means of death, for the redemption of the trans- 
gressions that were under the first Testament, they 
which are called might receive the promise of etenal 
inheritance. ' ' 

The phrase above, " that we also should walk in 
newness of life, ' ' not only implies moral duty, but 
that the person so baptized does so walk, i. e.^ 
through baptism we may, can and do thus walk. 
As St. Paul also says in his Epistle to the Ephesians 
in the same line : * ' Husbands, love your wives, even 
as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself 
for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the 
washing of water by the word. ' ' That is, literally, 
' ' by the washing of water in the word, " or "by the 
washing of water joined with the word," because 
the natural and the spiritual elements are conjoined 
in holy baptism. 

Moreover, the grace of salvation is offered to us 
in our baptism. So St. Peter: " The like figure 
whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not 



Il8 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the 
answer of a good conscience toward God) by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ." Also St. Paul: ** But 
after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour 
toward men appeared, not by works of righteous- 
ness which we have done, but according to His mercy 
He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and 
renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He shed on us 
abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that 
being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs 
according to the hope of eternal life. ' ' 

Again, the grace of God is always offered to us in 
our baptism. God has in this act made with us an 
everlasting covenant. * ' For the gifts and calling of 
God are without repentance (change).'' God never 
changes His mind in the covenant of baptism. 
While the ground remains on which He originally 
acted, He never revokes His gifts. Baptism, there- 
fore, as a divine institution, is an unchangeable 
thing. God did not institute two kinds of baptisms, 
as some dream, in one of which grace is offered, and 
in the other is not. * * For what if some did not be- 
lieve ? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God 
without effect?" That is, if the blessing is not 
realized by this or that person, it is not because the 
blessing is not in God's ordinance, but because it is 
not received. For though grace is always offered in 
baptism, yet it is not always conferred. The bap- 
tism in its validity and exercise, our faith or unbelief 
can in no degree change ; but on our faith its blessings 



NATURE AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. II9 

are conditioned. If a man has a golden eagle 
offered him, he may take it or reject it. The character 
and value of the golden eagle depend in no degree 
on his knowledge of them, or on his faith about them. 
If he has no faith in the case, he may barter it for a 
trifle, or he may throw it away. So with baptism. 

Our confessors carefully and thoroughly used the 
words, " Grace is offered in baptism^'' implying: 
That all who receive baptism savingly receive 
grace. They knew well that a man may be baptized 
and be a godless man ; for baptism is not grace, but 
a means of grace. Only those who exercise faith 
savingly receive grace. The grace of God is always 
offered in baptism, and is actually conferred upon 
and received by those who have faith. The grace 
of baptism may be lost by him who has it ; he may 
fall from grace. But the grace of God offered in 
baptism, but not wholly received by lack of faith, 
may be savingly secured by faith in later times. 

We deduce the following conclusions : 

1. Objections to our doctrine of baptismal grace, 
as if we held mechanically, physically and inevitably 
to the outward application of water, by which the 
salvation of the soul was made sure, are founded in 
gross ignorance and wicked perversion. 

2. Equally groundless is the self-delusive plea of 
him who assumes that because grace is always 
offered in baptism, he is in grace because baptized, 
although his life be one of unbelief and godlessness. 

3. The true Scripture doctrine of the efficacy of 



I20 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

holy baptism, as taught in the Confession of our 
Church, nourishes no false reliance, but a spirit of 
perpetual watchfulness ; while on the other hand it 
implies a. most glorious assurance in the hearts of 
those who are true to the baptismal covenant, that 
in their baptism, they have not only a solemn pledge 
that God has received them as His own, but have 
also a spring of sustaining grace. They know that 
what baptism offers it offers always; and what it 
offers it actually confers upon all who are willing to 
receive it — even God's rich grace, regenerating, jus- 
tifying, sanctifying, saving, and glorifying. It is 
not in the power of human language to exaggerate 
the blessings of baptism to him who rightly receives 
and continues rightly to use it. So says Dr. Krauth 
in his Lectures on Baptism. 

We close this chapter by a quotation from Luther, in 
which he sets forth the nature and design of baptism : 

" I do not speak concerning the efficacy and ad- 
vantages of baptism,, the immense effects which it 
produces ; of this we will speak hereafter; but con- 
cerning its constitutional nature, as it is in itself. I 
remark here, if you observe this particular, how this 
■ water is united with the Word and name of God, be- 
i cause in its administration He Himself has com- 
manded us to pronounce the words, * * I baptize thee 
in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ' ' 
as if He had said, ** I, God the Father, I, God the 
Son, and Holy Ghost, sanctify this water, " therefore 
you cannot say that it is merely a perishable water ; 



NATURE AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 121 

or, as our adversaries denominate it, water for the 
washing even of dogs ; but you must say it is the 
water of the divine majesty Himself, as we mortals 
do not baptize with it, but God Himself through our 
hands; and He has inserted and incorporated His 
name with it, that it may be mingled with His name, 
and may very properly be termed water thoroughly 
divine. For precisely as when you grasp a piece of 
iron, which is lying heated in the forge, you grasp 
not merely iron, but the fire also which is in it ; and 
although you do not see the fire, but only the iron, 
as we cannot see the fire glowing so well by day as 
b}" night, yet it is still not only iron, but both iron 
and fire ; indeed so thoroughly has the fire penetrated 
through and through it, that we can feel or experi- 
ence nothing but the touch of fire ; so we should re- 
gard the water of baptism, embodying the name of 
God, and altogether and completely penetrated with 
it, so that it has become entirely the same essence, 
and is now a thing far different from other water. 
Like some precious beverage which we present to a 
sick man, which, although it is mostly composed of 
water, yet it is so entirely impregnated with precious 
spice and sugar that it has no longer any taste of 
water in it. But here is by far a more precious 
water, which is sweetened with the name of God, 
indeed altogether and entirely divine, though before 
our eyes we see nothing more than water. 

" You have now what may be said concerning the 
power and advantages of baptism ; all which, as rep- 



122 BAPTISM AND FEET WASHING. 

resented above, Christ has comprised in His own 
words, where He says, * He that believe th and is 
baptized shall be saved. ' For by this He gives us 
to understand that His will and ordinance are that 
we receive baptism, not in order that the body may 
be washed, and remain outwardly pure and clean, 
like the daily purifications of the ancient Jews; nor 
that it might be a mere empty sign, by which people 
might know us, as the Jews, with their circumcision; 
but exclusively with the design that we may be 
saved by it, that is, be freed from sin, death, and 
hell, and every evil, to be eternally righteous, holy, 
and vigorous, the heirs of heaven. For all this must 
result from this expression. For, if man be saved, 
his freedom from sin and justification must precede ; 
as no one will be saved, except him who is righteous 
and. holy beforehand. Again, if he shall be saved, 
he must be freed from death, and possess life : be- 
sides, he must be secured from hell and condemna- 
tion; and finally every calamity, unhappiness, and 
sorrow, fear and terror, must be taken away, and he 
must be brought to everlasting tranquillity and joy. 
All this, I say baptism brings to us ; not because it is 
water, but because the name and power of God is in it, 
who has ordained that it shall be a heavenly, divine 
water ; and He will give us these blessings by means 
both of this water and His word. For He has power 
and strength abundantly sufficient to produce this 
effect, whenever He wills or determines, even through 
a substance much less considerable than water. ' ' 



PART II. 
THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER X. 



THE GREAT COMMISSION. 



Who are the proper subjects of baptism? To this 
we reply, * * Adult believers and also infants. ' * We 
have no right to exclude infants from baptism ; for 
God expressly estal^lished infant membership in 
His Church, at its first visible organization, and never 
since withdrew this privilege. Gen. xvii. 12, '* He 
that is eight days old shall be circumcised among 
you," etc. 

Hence, as the covenant (church), then established 
by God, was ' ' everlasting^ ' ' it must, as the apostle 
teaches (Rom. xi. 20-24), extend to the end of the 
world substantially the same church. And, as God 
established infant membership in it, no one can re- 
voke it but God Himself, which He has not done. 

With us Lutherans baptism has become mostly in- 
fant baptism. As long as the Church retains the 
character of a mission, she is conversant with the 
Word and adult baptism. But as soon as she has 
anywhere attained a firm foothold, she looks upon 
the children that are born in her bosom as her chil- 
dren, and receives them into the fellowship of the 
salvation whose bearer she is. We, therefore, take 

(125) 



126 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

the position that infants of Christian parents are 
proper subjects for Christian baptism and church 
membership. Rev. M. W. Hamma, D. D., in har- 
mony with this, says : * ' All orthodox denominations 
hold baptism as a sacrament, but all do not regard it 
of like importance. 

" As between those churches that practice infant 
baptism, the Lutheran, with possibly a single excep- 
tion, gives this sacrament the greatest significance 
both in creed and practice. While some treat it as of 
divine origin^ the Lutheran maintains it as also of 
divine co7itmand. While others regard it proper and 
salutary, she holds it to be also necessary. The lan- 
guage of our Confession is: * Concerning baptism 
our churches teach that it is necessary to salvation ; 
that through baptism the grace of God is offered ; 
and that children are to be baptized, who being by 
baptism offered to God are received into His favor. ' 
Out of this doctrine grows our precious view of in- 
fant membership. 

" We teach that inasmuch as baptism is the initia- 
tory rite into the Christian Church, and is a means of 
grace connected with the plan of salvation, therefore 
baptized children are in the Church of Christ, being 
in the same covenant of God as adult members, with 
only the disabilities of infancy upon them, rendering 
it for the time being impossible for them to use all 
the rights of full membership. Meanwhile they are 
in the school of Christ under training for higher dis- 
cipleship, being constantly reminded that their bap- 



THE GREAT COMMISSION. 1 27 

tism has put npon them the seal of God's covenant 
whereby they have been incorporated into the king- 
dom of Christ on earth. 

* * Under such teaching they grow up with the sense 
of divine obligation and church relationship which 
well prepares them in due time for the assumption 
of all the duties of the Christian life in the con- 
firmation of their baptismal vows. 

" Some American churches seem to treat baptized 
children the same as outright sinners needing con- 
version before they are worthy of being called 
Christians. Whereas our Church teaches that at 
baptism children begin to be converted, and from 
that day are put under the divine administration of 
renewing grace together with the adult disciples of 
Christ. 

* * Any Church that has no place in her membership 
for the infants and the children of the Christian fam- 
ily is but half a Church. It is not after the Jewish 
model, which includes the children of every age, nor 
yet after the Christian, which is equally comprehen- 
sive. Though such denominations may be orthodox 
in the fundamentals, they do not apprehend the full 
meaning of this precious sacrament when either they 
entirely withhold from or limit its grace with chil- 
dren. Probably no feature of our Church gives her 
greater strength than her teaching and practice on 
this subject. It is a vantage ground of priceless 
value which, if she faithfully appreciate and use, 
cannot but make her more and more the foremost 
Protestant Church in the world. 



128 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

** It is a well recognized fact of other denomina- 
tions that the young people of Lutheran parentage, 
by reason of the religious instruction and training 
generally given them under our system, are among 
the most desirable material of which to build up 
their own congregations. Hence their constant 
temptation to the practice of proselyting, which, 
while it is a reproach to them, ought to be a cause 
of shame to many of our people for showing less 
appreciation of their own Church than even 
strangers. 

" Happily the day is at hand when those who bear 
our name, as well as others, are coming more fully 
to realize what an inestimable treasure we possess in 
our system of spiritual culture for the young, grow- 
ing out of our superior views and practice of infant 
baptism. 

" How glorious that Church which offers such ful- 
ness of the provisions of salvation that not even the 
youngest child need be left out of the kingdom and 
Church of Christ for a single day!" We get our 
authority for infant baptism : 

From the Lord Jesus. — No one will dispute this 
authority, for Jesus says: '* All power is given unto 
Me in heaven and in earth. ' ' But it is denied that 
Jesus has given us this authority. We, however, 
appeal to the general commission with which He has 
clothed the ministers of the Word : "Go ye there- 
fore, and teach {matheteusate^ make disciples of,) all 
nations," etc. The word nation, as its etymology 



THE GREAT COMMISSION. I29 

imports {itatus, born; or nascor^ to be born)^ orig- 
inally denoted a family or race of men descended 
from a common progenitor. The command must 
therefore include men, women, and children. But 
how are we to make disciples of these? The com- 
mission contains an answer to this question. It is 
by baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost; and by teaching them to observe 
the instructions of Jesus. 

On the grammatical point of the commission, 
Dr. Campbell, a distinguished Baptist, says that 
** the active participle always, when connected with 
a verb in the imperative mood, expresses the man- 
ner in which the thing commanded is to be per- 
formed. Cleanse the room — washing it; clean the 
floor — sweeping it; cultivate the field — ploughing 
it ; sustain the hungry — feeding them ; furnish the 
soldiers — arming them; convert the nations — bap- 
tizing them, are exactly the same form of speech. ' ' 
(Christian Baptism, p. 630.) 

The command is general ; and if the Saviour had 
desired children to be excluded. He would most 
assuredly have told us. The question therefore is : 
How would the apostles likely understand the com- 
mission? Just as we understand a general law when 
there is no exception given or implied. Especially 
when the apostles were accustomed to infant mem- 
bership in the Jewish Church, which was preparatory 
to the Christian Church. And if they had any mis- 
apprehensions as to the relation of children to the 
9 



130 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

Christian Church, these must have been entirely 
removed by the Saviour's rebuke, when He said, on 
the occasion when the Israelitish mothers brought 
young children to Him, that He should touch them, 
and the disciples rebuked those that brought them : 
** Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and for- 
bid them not ; for of such is the kingdom of God, ' ' 
Mark x. 14. Luke has it: " They brought unto Him 
also infants, that He would touch them, ' ' Luke xviii. 
15. There can therefore be no dispute as to the age 
of the subjects under consideration. 

The desire of these mothers in Israel to see their 
children, then infants, blessed by Jesus, sprang from 
a similar feeling that lies in the hearts of all Christ- 
ian parents, and that is in a great measure the 
foundation for the Christian baptism of our children, 
especially since the Saviour has approved of this 
common feeling in the hearts of Christian parents. 
He was pleased with this feeling. Could the Saviour 
be pleased with anything wrong? No, never. But 
we will tell you with whom He was not well pleased. 
He was very much displeased, and took it very ill, 
that the disciples hindered the mothers from bring- 
ing their children to Jesus. If the Twelve thought 
that children must first become like them, grown 
up, in order to secure the interest of the Saviour in 
them, our Lord, on the other hand, gave them to 
understand that they must first become like little 
children, if they would become participants of His 
regard. The conduct of the Twelve toward these 



THE GREAT COMMISSION. I3I 

mothers in Israel is a very striking illustration of the 
spirit of grumblers against infant baptism. 

Christ's joyful reception of these little children, 
and His displeasure against those who would hinder 
them from being brought, have established a clear 
principle by w^hich we may rest assured that children, 
infants, are included in the general commission, to 
make disciples of all nations. 

The command, therefore, for baptizing children is 
exactly the command for baptizing any human crea- 
tures, neither more nor less. If we were asked 
where infant baptism is expressly enjoined in the 
New Testament, our reply would be, in the baptis- 
mal commission, in which neither male nor female, 
adult nor infant, is specifically mentioned, but male 
and female, adult and infant, are generically men- 
tioned in the one all-embracing term nation. 



CHAPTER XL 

THE FITNESS OF CHILDREN FOR BAPTISM. 

** For of such is the kingdom of heaven," Matt, 
xix. 14. The kingdom of heaven, or the Church of 
Christ, is a divine institution, established on earth for 
the salvation of men. This kingdom must have sub- 
jects. Who are the proper subjects? We reply, in the 
language of Jesus, children : "for of such is the king- 
dom of heasren. " Literally, " To such belongs the 
kingdom of heaven. ' ' The kingdom of heaven con- 
sists of subjects who have been received into favor 
of the. King. Who are these but such as have their 
sins forgiven? Infants have no actual sins, but only 
original sin, which is forgiven by virtue of the atone- 
ment made for all men by Jesus Christ. There- 
fore there is no hindering cause to obstruct the work 
of grace in the heart of a child, no more than there 
is in one who has been justified by faith. As soon 
as an adult believes in Jesus, the hindering cause to 
the pardon of his actual sins is at once removed, and 
he enters into the blessedness of a pardoned sinner, 
and thus he reaches the same basis as that on which 
the child stands in the kingdom of grace. There is 
no more condemnation to a child that is in Christ by 
(132) 



THE FITNESS OF CHILDREN FOR BAPTISM. 1 33 

baptism than there is to an adult who is in Christ by 
baptism, and who, being justified by faith, has peace 
with God. 

If there is any difference between an adult believer 
and an infant, as to the right of baptism, the better 
right belongs to the child ; for the child has never 
been polluted by bad habits, which have become to 
the adult almost a second nature. Although par- 
doned, he has notwithstanding weakened his moral 
nature, and in this respect the child has the advan- 
tage over the adult. Take the converted drunkard 
or libertine, and a little innocent child, and bring 
them both under the saving influence of the Church, 
and the child will have a better chance of reaching 
the goal than the adult. Whoever weakens his moral 
nature by bad habits runs a fearful risk of losing his 
soul in the end. " Can the Ethiopian change his 
skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do 
good, that are accustomed to do evil," Jer. xiii. 23. 
Grace, in this respect, runs very much in a channel 
similar to natural law. Hence the Bible says, 
' ' Train up a child in the way he should go : and 
when he is old, he will not depart from it, ' ' Prov. . 
xxii. 6. The reason is that good habits have been 
established by grace. Children have the very strong- 
est susceptibility to grace ; and, in this respect also, 
they have the advantage over adult believers. 

Children have need of the grace of God as well as 
adults ; for the former are depraved as well as the 
latter, only the moral obliquity of children has not 



134 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

yet been developed. Our children, it is true, have 
no knowledge of what takes place in their baptism ; 
for they have yet no understanding. But does it 
follow that they are not brought into a state or con- 
dition of grace by baptism? Is not the child by this 
act of baptism declared to be an heir of God, and a 
joint-heir with Christ? Baptism is the expression for 
this. " The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth 
nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all ; but 
is under tutors and governors until the time ap- 
pointed of the father. Even so we, when we were 
children, were in bondage under the elements of the 
world : but when the fulness of the time was come, 
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made 
under the law, to redeem them that were under the 
law, that we might receive the adoption of sons," 
Gal. iv. 1-5. 

The universal and benevolent design, therefore, 
of God, in establishing His kingdom, will not allow 
that any human creature, who is morally qualified to 
be received into that kingdom, should be excluded. 
But we have seen that we are received into that 
kingdom, the Church, by baptism. This accords 
with the Scriptures: " Who will have all men (that 
is, all human creatures,) to be saved." Again, 
* * Even so it is not the will of your Father which is 
in heaven, that one of these little ones should per- 
ish, " I Tim. ii. 4; Matt, xviii. 14. 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE APOSTLES AND CHURCH HISTORY. 

The apostles were divinely inspired teachers, and 
they illustrated in their ministry how the commission 
of Christ is to be understood. 

In the Acts of the Apostles we are informed that 
they baptized whole households. For Christianity is 
the soul not only of an individual, but also of a 
domestic fellowship,. We therefore call attention to 
a consideration of the following passages of Scrip- 
ture : 

The conversion and baptism of Cornelius and all 
his house. Acts x. 1-2, 44-48. Cornelius was one 
that feared God with all his house. Having been 
divinely directed, he sent for Peter to hear the gospel 
preached. While the apostle preached the Word of 
the Lord to Cornelius and his household, and to 
many others assembled together on the occasion, the 
Holy Ghost fell on those who heard the Word ; and 
the apostle commanded them to be baptized in the 
name of the Lord. 

The baptism of Lydia and her household, Acts 
xvL 15. 

The baptism of the Philippian jailer and all his 

(135) 



136 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

house, Acts xvi. 30-33. The baptism of Crispus 
with all his house, Acts xviii. 8. 

The baptism of Stephanas and his household, 
I Cor. i. 16. 

Now, a glance at any neighborhood will show that 
families without children are the exception, not the 
general rule. Therefore there must have been chil- 
dren in the five families mentioned, and they must 
have been baptized with the rest. To say the least, 
it is highly probable that they were baptized along 
with the adults in the same families ; for so it is re- 
corded. 

Also, St. Paul's address to children in Ephesians 
vi. I. Here is his language: "Children, obey your 
parents in the Lord; for this is right." Herein lies 
an argument for infant membership in the Church of 
Christ, which I confess 1 overlooked for many years, 
until my attention was called to it by Dr. Luthardt 
in his Compend of Dogmatik. The apostle's epistle 
is addressed to a church in which were children that 
were members. This cannot be denied. How did 
these children become members of the Church? 
There is only one way, and that is by baptism. Let 
our opponents show that this is not true. 

In some of these cases the household is said to 
have believed, which does not, of necessity, exclude 
infants, who by the grace of God can believe, and 
who, both in the circumcision of the Old Testament 
and in the baptism of the New Testament, are prop- 
erly regarded as believers, and are reckoned among 



THE APOSTLES AKD CHURCH HISTORY. 1 37 

the believers. If, for argument's sake, we grant for 
a moment that when mention is made of faith in a 
household, it implies that none of them were infants, 
then, logically, when no mention is made of faith, 
the inference is that there were infants. But in the 
case of Lydia and Stephanas, there is no mention 
made of faith. Besides, Peter says, without limita- 
tion to those whom he addressed, " The promise is 
to you and j^our children. ' ' And Paul and Silas, be- 
fore any faith, on the part of the household, existed, 
said to the jailer, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and thou shalt be saved, and thy house, ' ' implying, 
just as under the Abrahamic covenant, the father 
and head of the household represented it, and that 
his children and his sons were embraced in its prom- 
ises. Hence not a solitary instance, of which we 
know, in the New Testament, is found, in which the 
family of a man was not baptized with him. . 

As to Church History, see Luther's Small Cate- 
chism, pages 19 and 20. I will give a synopsis of 
the facts mentioned. *' Origen, one of the church 
fathers, who was born only eighty-five years after 
St. John's death, and other Christian fathers, assert 
that infant baptism was handed down to their age 
from the days of the apostles. During the first four 
hundred years from the formation of the Christian 
Church, neither any society of men, nor any individ- 
ual, denied the lawfulness of infant baptism. Ter- 
tuUian urged only the delay of infant baptism, and 
that not in all cases. And Gregory only delayed it, 



138 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

perhaps, in his own children. In the next seven 
hundred years there was no society, and no individ- 
ual, who even pleaded its delay, much less any who 
denied the right or duty of infant baptism. In the 
year 1120, one sect rejected infant baptism, but that 
sect was opposed by the other churches as heretical, 
and was soon brought to nothing. From that time 
no one opposed infant baptism until the year 1522; 
since when, also, the great body of the Christian 
Church has continued the practice of infant baptism. ' ' 
That infant baptism has been handed down from 
the days of the apostles seems evident from the fact 
that St. John, like St. Paul, regards the children of 
believers as members of the Christian Church. In 
I John ii. 12, we have the following: ** I write unto 
you, little children, because your sins are forgiven 
you for His name's sake." These little children 
and fathers, and young men, are all addressed as 
belonging to the Christian Church. But how could 
they belong to the Christian Church without bap- 
tism? It is therefore altogether probable that the 
introduction and exercise of infant baptism is as old 
as the independent existence of the Christian Church. 
Under these circumstances we have every reason to 
believe that infant baptism was actually practiced in 
the five families mentioned above, which are re- 
corded only as examples, leaving us to infer the ex- 
istence of many similar ones, while yet it would be 
contrary to all experience to suppose all the families 
to have been without small children. 



THE APOSTLES AND CHURCH HISTORY. 1 39 

And the opposition of Tertullian to infant baptism, 
proves most decidedly the existence of infant bap- 
tism, at that time, as well as the custom of having 
sponsors. Nay, more, Tertullian was aware that 
the practice of the whole Church was against him, 
and therefore he came out, though unsuccessfully, 
as a reformer. Had he been able to appeal to anti- 
quity and to oppose infant baptism as an innovation, 
he would certainly have taken advantage of this po- 
sition. But he does not question the apostolic origin 
of this ordinance, nor even its propriety and legality. 
So says Dr. Schaff . 

Justin Martyr^ in his Apology, speaks of those 
who from the time they v/ere little children, were 
made disciples of Christ. 

Irenaeus, in his second book against heretics, says 
of Christ: ** He came to save all through Himself — 
all, I say, are born again unto God, infants, and little 
ones, and children, and the young men, and the old 
men. ' ' 

Cyprian, in his epistle to Phidas, third book, letter 
eighth, according to Dr. Krauth, speaking of a 
council of sixty-six bishops, says, * ' It was the judg- 
ment of the whole, that to no one born of man is the 
pity and grace of God to be denied, ' ' and at the end 
of the letter says, * ' that the judgment of the council 
was that none should be prohibited by us from bap- 
tism and the grace of God ; especially in regard to 
infants and those but recently born, did we regard it 
as a thing to be observed. ' ' 



I40 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

A mbrose says, ' * Christ commands all nations to be 
baptized ; therefore neither the old proselyte, nor the 
infant of our own house is excepted, for every age 
has sin and therefore every age needs the sacra- 
ment. ' ' 

Augustine says, ** Even the Pelagians did not dare 
to deny the baptism of the little ones, because they 
say that to deny it would bring them into open con- 
flict with the entire Church ' ' 

Infant baptism has been practiced throughout all 
Christendom, in the Greek Church, in the Roman 
Church, and in the Oriental sects. The history of 
infant baptism can be accounted for on no other 
supposition than that it is apostolic and divine in its 
origin. 

We may also mention in this connection inscrip- 
tions found in the catacombs of Rome. In these we 
meet with the epitaphs of children who are called 
neophytes, a title which, of course, could not have 
been bestowed upon them unless they had been re- 
ceived by baptism into the Church. The age at 
which they died precludes the idea of that rite hav- 
ing been administered to them in any way but as 
infants. Here is a translation of one : " The title of 
Candidus the neophyte, who lived twenty-one months, 
buried on the nones of September." Does not all 
this show conclusively from Church History that in- 
fant baptism was practiced in the early ages of the 
Christian Church? How shall we account for this 
universal practice of infant baptism in the primitive 



THE APOSTLES AND CHURCH HISTORY. I41 

chtirch otherwise than that the apostles themselves 
introduced it? Let the opponents account for this 
fact in any other way, if they can. 

Luther says: ''First, because infant baptism has 
descended from the apostles and the practice has 
continued ever since the apostolic age, we should not 
abolish it, but allow it thus to be observed, since no 
one has yet been able to prove that children do not 
believe when they are baptized, or that this kind of 
baptism is wrong. For even if I were not certain 
that they believe, I must still, for the sake of my 
conscience, allow them to be baptized, as it is far 
better for baptism to be administered to children 
than for me to abolish it. For if this baptism be 
right and beneficial, and confer salvation upon chil- 
dren, as we believe, and were I to abolish it, I should 
be accountable for all the children that might be 
lost for the want of baptism : this would be a fearful 
responsibility indeed. But if it were wrong, that is, 
useless and unprofitable to children, there could be 
no other sin committed by it except what the Word 
of God would pronounce in vain, and His sign given 
to no purpose ; I would be guilty of no lost soul in 
consequence of it, but only of the use of God's Word 
and sign in vain. ' ' 

''Secondly, there is one strong indication of the 
divine authority for infant baptisnic No heresy has 
ever yet endured permanently, but it has always, 
and in a short time too, as St. Peter says, been ex- 
posed and brought to shame ; as St Paul writes of 



142 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

Jannes and Jambres, and persons similar to them, 
saying that their folly became manifest to all men, 
2 Tim. iii. 8, 9. Now, if infant baptism were wrong, 
God undoubtedly would not have suffered it to con- 
tinue so long, or to be so universally observed 
throughout the whole Christian community; nor 
could it have escaped from being at last brought 
into disrepute before all men. For although the 
Anabaptists now defame it, yet their attempts are 
ineffectual, and it is not yet brought into disgrace. ' ' 
Luther on the Sacraments, pp. 123, 124. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 

The Apostle Peter says to the repentant Jews: 
** For the promise is unto yon and to your children, 
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
our God shall call. ' ' To v^hat promise does the 
apostle here allude? Evidently to the promise which 
God made to Abraham. This was, " In thy seed 
shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, ' ' Gen. 
xxii. 1 8. By turning to Paul's epistle to the Gala- 
tians, iii. i6, we find how this promise is to be un- 
derstood, that it is applicable to spiritual Israel, viz. , 
" Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises 
made. He saith not, And to se^ds, as of many, but 
as of one. And to thy seed, which is Christ. ' ' There- 
fore the promise is that in Christ we and our children 
and all that are afar off, even as man3r as the Lord 
our God shall call by the gospel, are to be blessed. 
Does not this show conclusively that our children 
are entitled to the grace of the covenant? But what 
is the grace of the covenant? It is t/te promised 
Spirit. ' ' Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of 
the law, being made a curse for us : for it is written, 
Cursed is every one that hangeth on* a tree ; that the 

(143) 



144 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

blessing of Abraliam mig-lit come on the Gentiles 
through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the 
promise of the Spirit through faith," Gal. iii. 13, 14. 
If children can receive the grace of the covenant, 
or the promised Spirit, which no one who believes 
in the salvation of children will dare to deny, then 
children are entitled also to the seal of the covenant, 
which is baptism. 

In order to show that baptism is the seal of the 
covenant of grace, the covenant that in Christ all 
the families of the earth should be blessed, should 
receive the promised Spirit, let us turn, first, to 
Rom. iv. 4, "And he (Abraham) received the sign 
of circumcision, a seal .of the righteousness of the 
faith which he had yet being uncircumcised : that he 
might be the father of all them that believe, though 
they be not circumcised ; that righteousness might 
be imputed to them also. ' ' Circumcision was a seal 
of the righteousness of faith. That is, it was a seal 
that faith in the promised Seed, which is Christ, 
justifies man before God or brings the promised 
Spirit ; for this is the point which the apostle is argu- 
ing. He says, '* Abraham believed God, and it was 
counted unto him for righteousness. " That is, fatth 
in Christ, the promised Seed, was counted by God 
to Abraham in the place of righteousness ; because 
such faith apprehended or included Christ. Abra- 
ham had no personal righteousness which could jus- 
tify him before God, but his faith in the promised 
Seed, which secured the merits of that just man 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. I45 

Christ Jesus, the God-man, was counted or reckoned 
to Abraham in the place of a personal righteousness 
of his own, which he ought to have had, but which, 
however, he could not produce by his own sinful 
power, because he was a sinner. The promised 
Spirit, or the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which 
Abraham's faith secured in the Seed, Christ, would 
produce the new obedience or a personal righteous- 
ness. But no one will deny that circumcision was 
just as much a seal of the righteousness of faith in 
Isaac, when he was circumcised, being eight days 
old, as it was in Abraham when he was a hundred 
years old. Who will deny, when he has this explicit 
passage before his eyes, that Isaac was justified be- 
fore God, having the seal of the covenant put upon 
him? He was then justified before God by virtue 
of the merits of the promised Seed, Christ, into 
whom he was engrafted by circumcision, " For the 
promise that he should be the heir of the world was 
not to Abraham or his seed, through the law, but. 
through the righteousness of faith." That is, the. 
righteousness which is secured' by faith. Abraham . 
secured it for himself and for his children by his 
faith in Christ, not, indeed, in such a way that neither 
he nor his children could forfeit the blessing of the 
covenant, but yet he secured it for himself and his 
children. 

Abraham was justified by faith, or he had received 
the promised Spirit by faith before he was circum- 
cised. He had received the blessed witness of the 



146 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

Spirit through faith in Christ, that his iniquities 
were forgiven and his sins covered before he was 
circumcised. As St. Paul says : * * And he received 
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness 
of faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised : that 
he might be the father of all them that believe, 
though they be not circumcised ; that righteousness 
might be imputed unto them also, and the father of 
circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision 
only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of 
our father Abraham, which he had, being yet uncir- 
cumcised. ' ' 

Now, all this reasoning both Peter and Paul show 
is applicable to the Christian family. These are the 
words of Paul : ' ' Now it was not written for his sake 
alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to 
whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that 
raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was 
delivered for our offences and was raised again for 
our. justification," Rom. iv. 23-25. And the same 
apostle sets forth the whole plan of salvation in Gal. 
iii. 13, 14, where he says: " Christ hath redeemed us 
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us : 
for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth 
on a tree : that the blessing of Abraham might come 
on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might 
receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. ' ' 

What, then, is " the blessing of Abraham? " It is 
not a blessing bestowed on us by Abraham, but it is 
the blessing which Abraham received from God 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. I47 

through faith. It is justification by faith. It is the 
reception of the promised Spirit, the Holy Spirit, 
through faith. It is what Paul writes to the Church 
of the Ephesians, where he says : " In whom ye also 
trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the 
gospel of your salvation : in whom also, after that ye 
believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of 
promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until 
the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the 
praise of his glory," Eph. i. 13, 14. This justifica- 
tion by faith, this promised Spirit through faith, was 
sealed to Abraham and his seed in covenant stipula- 
tions, all of which is applicable to the Christian 
family. 

But some say childreli cannot believe, therefore 
they should not be baptized, which point will come 
up more fully in the discussion hereafter; but we 
will now say that if children are excluded from the 
Christian Church then the Abrahamic covenant has 
failed, and it is not for our children, nor the children 
of Abraham. But Isaac was included and became 
heir of the world, received the promised Spirit as 
stipulated in the seal of the covenant ; and the chil- 
dren, who are baptized, are also included ; for Peter 
says : ' ' The promise is unto you and to your chil- 
dren. ' ' The promised Spirit, justification by faith, 
is to you and to your children. Have any Christian 
parents through the righteousness of faith secured 
the promised Spirit for their children? Thousands 
and tens of thousands. The Christian Church has 



148 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

been propagated in that way from the beginning. 
We have received the promised Spirit stipulated in 
the Abrahamic covenant. " Through baptism we 
receive the assurance that the divine blessings which 
the Christian doctrine promises concern even us^ and 
that even we may participate in them ; or, in other 
words, these blessings are by this rite particularly 
applied to our own personal state, and we learn in 
faith to appropriate them to ourselves. As any one, 
on being formally admitted as a citizen of a town, 
in taking the oath of citizenship, and going through 
the other rites of initiation, receives the confident 
assurance that he has now a title to all the rights 
and privileges of citizenship, so it is with the Christ- 
ian in baptism. It is the same, in this view, with 
baptism as with circumcision. This Paul calls 
(Rom. iv. 11) a sign and seal for Abraham and his 
posterity — i. e., a token of assurance and a proof that 
God was favorably disposed towards him and justified 
him on account of his faith. So baptism is to every 
one the token of assurance that he may partake in 
all those spiritual blessings which Christianity prom- 
ises. Whoever, therefore, is baptized, receives the 
assurance that his sins are forgiven him for the sake 
of Christ — that God, for the sake of Christ, looks 
upon him with favor and regards him as a child, and 
that he, in faithful obedience to the commands of 
Jesus (and by enjoying the constant aid of the Holy 
Spirit which is promised), may securely expect 
eternal blessedness, Acts ii. 38; Gal. iii. 27; Mark 
xvi. 16.''— Dr. Knapp. 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. I49 

Vv^liat force would Paul's powerful argument, in 
the fourth chapter of Romans, have if our children 
were not entitled to the blessing of the covenant, 
the promised Spirit? On this the whole argument 
turns. To say that children have a part in the cov- 
enant of grace, which is the covenant which God 
made with Abraham, and then to deny them the 
sign of the covenant, which in the Christian Church 
i3 baptism, would be marvelous indeed. 

That baptism, as a sign of the covenant, has come 
into the place of circumcision, is evident from Col. 
ii. II, 12, "In whom also ye are circumcised with 
the circumcision made without hands, in putting off 
the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision 
of Christ : buried with Him in baptism, wherein also 
ye are raised with Him through the faith of the ope- 
ration of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. ' ' 
Here circumcision and baptism are both used as seals 
of the righteousness of faith ; the former as the seal 
of the Church before Christ, and the latter as the 
seal of the Church after Christ. And if one stands 
in the place of the other, which no one will deny 
who understands the spirit of the Bible, then one 
must have all the force and authority of the other. 
Or, if one sealed children to the covenant of grace, 
so must the other. Therefore baptism is the seal 
of the same covenant that circumcision was, and the 
former includes all the subjects that the latter did. 
' ' For the promise is unto you and to your children. ' ' 
That is divinely inspired language, and who will 
reverse it: 



150 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

Our Opponents object to infant baptism on the 
ground that many baptized infants, afterwards, as 
they grow up, go astray. The same objection might 
be lodged against adult baptism. Some distinguished 
Baptist has acknowledged that nine-tenths of the 
adults who are immersed go astray. We can say 
better things of our baptized children. The greater 
part of these grow up to be pious men and women 
in the Church. 

Our opponents also object to involuntary church- 
membership. That is, children should not become 
members of the Church until th.eY feel to become 
members. We also object to involuntary church- 
membership in adults; but infants and adults can- 
not, in this respect, be treated alike. Upon the 
same ground we might say that children ought not 
to go to school until th^ey feel to go. If that course 
should be taken by parents with their children, the 
most of children would stay out of school all the time, 
would grow up in ignorance, and would become a 
curse to Church and State. We must lead our chil- 
dren in the right direction. * * Train up a child in 
the way he should go. ' ' This means that we are to 
lead the wills of our children — that we are to teach 
them obedience. 

The Bible says, ' ' Children, obey your parents in 
the Lord. ' ' But how could children obey their par- 
ents in the Lord, if both parents and children were 
not in the Lord? For to be " in the Lord " means 
to be in the Church by baptism, Rom. xvi. 11-13. 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 151 

This is just as plain as language can make it. It 
would have no meaning in families where the Lord 
is not acknowledged. Look for a moment at the 
language of the commandment, ** Honor thy father 
and thy mother. " This was addressed to the chil- 
dren of the Church. Those who are *' in the Lord'' 
are those who are in the Church by baptism. That 
is what is meant by the phrase in the Bible. 

The Abrahamic covenant is further illustrated by 
St. Paul in Rom. xi. 17-26. Here are his exact 
words : ' * And if some of the branches be broken 
off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted 
in among them, and with them partakest of the root 
and fatness of the olive tree, boast not against the 
branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the 
root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then. The 
branches were broken off that I might be grafted 
in. Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, 
and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, 
but fear ; for if God spared not the natural branches, 
take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold there- 
fore the goodness and severity of God: on them 
which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if 
thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also 
shalt be cut off. And they also if they abide not 
still in unbelief, shall be grafted in : for God is able 
to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of 
the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert 
grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: 
how much more shall these, which be the natural 



152 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

branches, be grafted into their own olive tree ? ' ' 
Here the Church of God is compared to a good 
olive tree, into which God's ancient people were 
grafted by circumcision. God's ancient people were 
grafted into the good olive tree by families, the 
father and all the male children being circumcised, 
and his wife and daughters standing in the same 
relation to the covenant by virtue of their union 
with the head of the family. 

Now, the apostle teaches us that the same good 
olive tree is yet standing, although some of the 
ancient families were broken ofE, and also that into 
the same good olive tree there have been other fam- 
ilies grafted. The ancient families or branches 
which were broken off failed because the life of the 
good olive tree ceased to reach them. This is the 
natural consequence with all branches that do not 
receive the fatness of the tree. The apostle teaches 
us that the good olive tree is yet standing, which is 
without contradiction the Church, which is Christ's 
body, " the fulness of Him that fiUeth all in all." 
But how do we, as families, get into this body, this 
same good olive tree? St. Paul answers this ques- 
tion elsewhere. He says, i Cor. xii. 13, " For by 
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether 
we be Jews or Gentiles, 'whether we be bond or 
free; and have been all made to drink into one 
Spirit." The Spirit's power is the fatness of the 
olive tree, and unites truly those who are baptized 
with water with the good olive tree. Who, there- 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 1 53 

fore, will deny a place to children in the good olive 
tree, when the promise is to us and to our children, 
the same blessed covenant that God made with Abra- 
ham, that in his seed should all the families of the 
earth be blessed ? Is it not an everlasting covenant ? 
Has it not been perpetuated by the children of the 
covenant ? Where would there be a Church for the 
opposers of infant baptism to-enter, if it had not been 
perpetuated by the children of the covenant? This, 
therefore, leads us to draw our next argument for 
infant baptism from the sanction of the Holy Ghost. 
It cannot be disputed successfully that the Church, 
the good olive tree, is born and perpetuated by the 
Holy Ghost. '* That which is born of the flesh is 
flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ' ' 
Therefore every natural birth must have a spiritual 
birth in order to unite with the Church of God. But 
the Spirit operates through means in the hearts and 
minds of all intelligent creatures. To say, however, 
that the Holy Ghost cannot operate directly, without 
means, upon the heart and mind of a child, would be 
to limit His power and ability to save the souls of 
children who die in their infancy. But baptism is 
the sign for His operation in the heart and mind 
of a child. But as the heart and mind of a child 
develop by coming in contact with the external 
objects around them, as they reach forth to the 
thoughts and sentiments of the world, they at the 
same time must be brought under religious culture 
in order to the right kind of spiritual development. 



154 BAPTISM AND FEET- WASHING. 

otherwise the carnal influences around them will in- 
duce them to walk in the ways of sin. Hence, the 
Holy Ghost says : ' ' Train up a child in the way he 
should go : and when he is old he will not depart 
from it," Prov. xxii. 6. In Vv^hat way would the 
Holy Ghost have a child to go ? Certainly, in the 
way of His Church, which ,He has planted on the 
earth for the moral and religious training of man- 
kind. This no one can successfully deny. Well, 
then, He would evidently have children start in their 
moral discipline in the Church as members. How 
could this training, to which the Holy Ghost alludes, 
take place out of the Church? But how would the 
Holy Ghost have us walk when we are old ? Would 
He not have us to be faithful and constant members 
of His Church ? 

That the Holy Ghost sanctions infant baptism is 
proved from the fact that He has perpetuated the 
Church through the baptized children of the Church. 
Those who have been trained for Christ and His 
Church, are in possession of the Holy Ghost, 
which is evident from the fruits of the Spirit 
which they produce in their lives. If infant baptism 
were not acceptable to the Holy Ghost, would He 
bless the baptized children of the Church ? Does not 
iniquity go down from parent to child, unto the third 
and fourth generation ? But here we see a blessing 
going down from parent to child, from generation 
to generation, and therefore we conclude that infant 
baptism is acceptable to the Holy Ghost. We will 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 155 

conclude tinder this head by quoting the language 
of Luther : ' ' That the baptism of infants is pleasing 
and grateful to Christ is abundantly manifest from 
what He Himself has done, viz., because God has 
sanctified and made partakers of the Holy Spirit 
many of those who were baptized immediately after 
their birth. But there are many, also, at the present 
day, of whom we perceive that they have the Holy 
Spirit, as they give certain proofs of this, both in 
doctrine and life ; just as by the grace of God there 
is granted to us the ability to interpret the Scrip- 
tures and know Christ, which every one knows to be 
impossible without the aid of the Holy Spirit. But 
if the baptism of children were not pleasing to 
Christ He would not give to any of them the Holy 
Spirit, nor even a particle of it ; and,, that I may say 
in a word what I think, there would not have been 
among men a single Christian through all the ages 
that have elapsed until the present day. ' * 

We may yet add the absence; of all impediments 
to infant baptism. There is none on the part of 
God. " Even so it is not the will of your Father 
which is in heaven, that one of these little ones 
should perish," Matt, xviii. 14. None on the part 
of the ministers, who can as readily give the bap- 
tismal washing, in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to an infant as to 
an adult. There is no impediment on the part of 
the infant that receives the baptism. The infant 
mind and heart are as hidden, as. the invisible world 
of the future. 



156 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

If it be said that the doctrine of infant regenera- 
tion is a profound mystery, and therefore dubious^ 
we would only reply in the language of Jesus, " Ex- 
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God ; ' ' and He also 
embraced infants in His declaration, when He said, 
" That which is born of the flesh is flesh;" and if 
men with Nicodemus still say, " How can this be ?" 
that it is unfathomable, then, with our Lord, we reply 
again, "So is it with every one that is born of the 
Spirit," John iii. 8. 

There are also prophetic declarations in the Old 
Testament in regard to the New Testament Church, 
representing the whole family and especially chil- 
dren as partakers in it. Isaiah xlix. 22, has the follow- 
ing : ' ' Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift 
up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my stand- 
ard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in 
their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon 
their shoulders. ' ' That is, the children of the Gen- 
tiles are thine spiritually, and they shall bring to 
thee in their bqsom and on their shoulders their 
children, which by God's grace shall be made thine. 



CHAPTER XIV. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 



We will now proceed to answer the principal ob- 
jections that have been offered to Infant Baptism, 

Objection i. Some opponents of infant baptism con- 
tend that the Abrahamic covenant is not the gospel^ 
and therefore no argument based on that covenant for 
infant membership in the Church by baptism is valid. 

The passage in Heb. viii. 8-12 has been some- 
times quoted in order to show that the Abrahamic 
covenant has passed away, and that, therefore, the 
condition of infant membership, w^hich w^as tinder 
that covenant, has also passed away, and that a new 
order of things has been established under the gos- 
pel. But let us read the passage : * ' For finding fault 
with them, He saith. Behold, the days come, saith 
the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with 
the house of Israel and with the house of Judah : not 
according to the covenant that I made with their 
fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to 
lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they 
continued not in My covenant and I regarded them 
not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I 
will make with the house of Israel after those days, 

(157) 



158 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

saith the Lord ; I will put My laws into their mind, 
and write them in their hearts: and I will be to 
them a God, and they shall be to Me a people : and 
they shall not teach every raan his neighbor, and 
every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for 
all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest. For 
I will be merciful to their unrighteonsness, and their 
sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. " 

This is a quotation from Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34, 
Septuagint. The prophet announces here that the 
Mosaic covenant, the old Jewish economy, and es- 
pecially its relative and hereditary provisions (see 
verses 29, 30) would be superseded by the gospel, or 
Abrahamic covenant, which would bring to us in 
reality what the former taught only in types and 
shadows. 

And these beautiful words of the prophet are 
quoted by the apostle for the same purpose. Hence, 
the apostle says, " But now hath He (our Great 
High Priest) obtained a more excellent ministry, by 
how much also He is the mediator of a better cove- 
nant, which was established upon better promises. 
For if the first covenant had been faultless, then 
should no place have been sought for the second, ' ' 
Heb. viii. 6, 7. 

Here ' * the covenant established upon better 
promises ' ' was the Abrahamic covenant, and by the 
phrase, * ' if the first covenant had been faultless, ' ' 
the apostle evidently means the Mosaic covenant, 
or the old Jewish economy. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. I59 

In the connection in which the words stand in the 
prophet Jeremiah, they predict not only the gospel 
or Abrahamic covenant, but also its blessings to the 
Hebrew race. With this compare Romans xi. 25-32. 

Now that by the old covenant is meant the Mosaic 
covenant, or the old Jewish economy, must be evi- 
dent to every attentive reader of the passage in dis- 
pute. The new or Abrahamic covenant was not to 
be according to the covenant which the Lord made 
with the Israelites when He took them by the hand 
to lead them out of the land of Egypt, which cove- 
nant was broken and all its conditions forfeited. He 
calls this covenant which He. is about to make new^ 
however, not in the sense of its being only a con- 
firmatory renewal of the Abrahamic covenant, but 
in precise and express opposition to the covenant 
which was made on their removal from Egypt, 
namely, the Mosaic covenant, that it should be a 
new covenant not merely numerically, but also 
qualitatively. 

Then follows a second principal idea. We are now 
told what was imperfect in the old or Mosaic cove- 
nant, and why there was need of the new or Abra- 
hamic covenant, and wherein this should differ from 
the old or Mosaic. The principal defect in the old 
or Mosaic covenant lies in its inefficiency, which 
every Christian has demonstrated by actual experi- 
ence- The reason is because sin is not removed by 
the old or Mosaic covenant, but only by it is sin 
brought to remembrance. As St. Paul says : ' ' More- 



l6o BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

over the law entered that the offence might abound, ' ' 
Rom. V. 20. Thus as the hearts of the people were 
not renewed, they continued not in the Mosaic cov- 
enant, and the Lord was under no obligations to 
have any regard for them. 

In the Mosaic or old covenant, God's law was only 
written outwardly, as a cold requirement, on tables 
of stone; but in the new or Abrahamic, i. e., the 
gospel covenant, the Lord has promised ' * to put His 
laws into our mind and to write them in our hearts, ' ' 
and thus that every one should know Him by blessed 
experience, the Lord being merciful to our unright- 
eousness and remembering our sins and our iniqui- 
ties no more. All this will find its complete con-, 
summation in the millennial glory of Christ's reign, 
when Abraham's seed shall be as the sand on the 
sea-shore and as the stars of heaven innumerable. 

That the prophet here foretells the consummation 
of the Abrahamic covenant under the gospel dispen- 
sation, must be evident to every reader of the New 
Testament who has experienced the regenerating 
grace of God in his mind and heart, which has 
brought light into his understanding and holiness 
into his will, by which he is enabled to serve God 
with a renewed disposition. 

We here call attention to only a few of the many 
passages of Scripture under this head. ' * Brethren, 
I speak after the manner of men ; Though it be but 
a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man 
disannuUeth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. l6l 

and his seed were the promises made. He saith 
not, And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to 
thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the 
covenant (the Abrahamic covenant), that was con- 
firmed before of God in. Christ, the law (the Mosaic 
covenant), which was four hundred and thirty years 
after, cannot disannul, that it should make the prom- 
ise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the 
law, it is no more of promise : but God gave it to 
Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the 
law ? It was added because of transgressions, till the 
seed should come to whom, the promise was made, ' ' 
Gal, iii. 15-19. 

It is seen from this that the Abrahamic covenant 
and the gospel are identical, and that the law was 
the old or Mosaic covenant which served only a 
temporary purpose ; but that the Abrahamic cove- 
nant was everlasting because it stood on the sure 
mercies of David (the Messiah). 

Again, ** For the promise, that he should be the 
heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, 
through the law (the Mosaic covenant), but through 
the righteousness of faith (the Abrahamic covenant) . 
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is 
made void, and the promise made of none effect: 
because the law worketh wrath : for where no law 
is there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, 
■ that it might be by grace ; to the end the promise 
might be sure to all the seed ; not to that only which 
is after the law, but to that also which is of the faith 
II 



l62 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

of Abraham, who is the father of us all, ' ' etc. , Rom. 
iv. 13-17. 

Now, St. Peter says to the repentant Jews : * ' For 
the promise (the Abrahamic covenant) is unto you, 
and to your children, and to all that are afar off, 
even as many as the Lord our God shall call, ' ' Acts 
ii. 39. God said to Abraham, " I will establish My 
covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after 
thee in their generations, for an everlasting cove- 
nant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after 
thee." Here we see that the Abrahamic covenant 
Was everlasting. The believing Jew can claim for- 
ever of God such a relation to his children as Abra- 
ham had. St. Paul says, " They which are the chil- 
dren of the flesh (i. e., children of Abraham according 
to the flesh, or by natural descent), " these are not 
the children of God : but the children of the promise 
are counted for the seed," Rom. ix. 8. That is, the 
believing Gentiles, as the spiritual children of Abra- 
ham, can claim the same relation to their children 
under the Abrahamic covenant as the believing Jews 
had done ; and now no less than to Abraham's nat- 
ural posterity is the promise to his spiritual pos- 
terity. * * For as many of you as have been baptized 
into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither 
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there 
is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in 
Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye 
Abraham's seed and heirs according to the pro- 
mise," Gal. iii. 27-29. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 163 

God's covenant with Abraham was a charter of 
the perfect validity of the Church for all ages. "And 
the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the 
heathen through faith, preached before the gospel 
unto Abraham, saying, " In thee shall all nations 
be blessed," Gal. iii. 8. This has never been an- 
nulled. Once given, it is perpetual. The identity 
of the Church with the Abrahamic covenant is further 
confirmed by verses 13 and 14 of the same chapter, 
** Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the 
law, being made a curse for us : for it is written. 
Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree : that the 
blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles 
through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the 
promise of the Spirit through faith. ' ' What is the 
blessing of Abraham as here taught by the apostle? 
Not a blessing which Abraham would bestow upon 
his descendants, but the blessing which God be- 
stowed upon Abraham when He counted or reckoned 
Abraham's faith for righteousness. Abraham was 
justified by faith; for justification, from an Evan- 
gelical standpoint, is that act of God by which He 
counts or reckons or declares our faith in Christ, for 
or in the place of righteousness. As St. Paul says, 
" Even as Abraham believed God, and it was ac- 
counted to him for righteousness. Know ye there- 
fore that they which are of faith, the same are the 
children of Abraham," Gal. iii. 6, 7. This justify- 
ing faith in the believer's heart is produced by the 
Holy Spirit through the Word, and is testified to by 



164 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

the same Spirit as genuine ; as is said in the passage 
above, " That we might receive the promise of the 
Spirit (or the promised Spirit) through faith. ' ' The 
promised Spirit was sealed to Abraham and his de- 
scendants or to all believers in Christ by the stipula- 
tions of the Abrahamic covenant or the gospel. ' 'And 
Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet 
being un circumcised : that he might be the father 
of all them that believe, though they be not cir- 
cumcised : that righteousness might be imputed unto 
them also," Rom. iv. 11. But the sign of circum- 
cision, or the seal of the righteousness of faith, was 
put upon Isaac when he was eight days old, by which 
God pledged to Abraham that his son should also 
receive the promised Spirit to work in him that 
faith by which alone he could be justified before 
God. And so it came to pass; for Isaac showed in 
the course of time that he was in possession of the 
same justifying faith that his father Abraham pos- 
sessed; and so down to the generations following. 
As St. Paul says to the Church of the Ephesians, 
* * In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the 
word of truth, the gospel of your salvation : in whom 
also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the 
Holy Spirit of promise," Eph. i. 13. 

Now, it is admitted by our opponents, that bap- 
tism has come in the place of circumcision as the 
seal of the righteousness of faith, and therefore the 
blessing of Abraham or the promise of justify- 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 165 

ing faith, wrought and sealed by the Holy Spirit in 
the hearts of our baptized children, is all the time 
in store for them in their baptism, whenever they 
shall choose to receive it, for the promise is unto us 
and to our children. 

This promise guarantees a perpetual seed in whom 
this blessing is to remain, which is Christ, Gen. xvii. 
7 ; Gal. iii. i6. As a seal of the covenant the Church 
before Christ had circumcision, and since Christ we 
have baptism. Gen. xvii. 9-14; Col. ii. 11, 12. 

This blessing of Abraham, justification by faith, 
or the promised Spirit through faith, has been eter- 
nally perpetuated in the Christian Church, as is 
proved from the fact that we who were baptized in 
our infancy have received the promised Spirit. 

Christ was a natural descendant of Abraham. 
That He is the medium through whom the blessing 
cf Abraham is perpetuated, see Gal. iii. 16-18. 
Christ is the medium through whom we receive the 
blessing of Abraham, because evangelical faith holds 
Christ enclosed and has Him present in baptism. 
The covenant is thus with the seed of Abraham 
forever. 

The nations of the earth come into this original 
covenant through this medium. The promise se- 
cured not only a perpetual seed, but a blessing to 
all nations through this seed. Those who believe 
in Christ are identical with Him in this covenant. 
In confirmation of this there are many sources of 
proof: (i) Gal. iii. 29. (2) This union by faith in 



l66 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

Christ makes them heirs of the same promise given 
to Abraham, Luke i. 32, ^:^; Rom. iv. 16; Gal. iii. 
26-29. (3) Though the Mosaic ritual were annulled, 
this could never affect the everlasting covenant with 
Abraham, Gal. iii. 13, 14. (4) The immutability of 
this promise to all the seed is ratified and confirmed 
by the oath of Jehovah, Heb. vi. 13-18. 

The conclusion follows that every Gentile believer 
has an interest in every promise and privilege which 
belongs to the grand charter of the Abrahamic cov- 
enant. An official recognition of the right of infant 
baptism would be but re-enacting a former principle. 
Allusions in the New Testament are corroborative 
of this conclusion — without it they can have no sig- 
7iificancy. These allusions are always consistent 
with the infant's right to the seal of the covenant. 
We have definite assertions that the kingdom of 
God or the Church includes infants. Matt. xix. 14. 
This is the best answer to those disciples who would 
have prevented the mothers in Israel from bringing 
their children to Christ, viz.. That children had a 
place in His kingdom. The reason given for bap- 
tism is the old Abrahamic promise, and this is ap- 
plicable also to children, Acts ii. 39. 

At the Pentecost was the first open manifestation 
and outward action for advancing the superstructure 
of which Christ had laid the foundation. He com- 
manded the disciples to remain at Jerusalem until 
the Spirit should be given to them. This first came 
on the day of Pentecost, Luke xxiv. 49; Acts ii. 2. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. l6^ 

Those who reject infant baptism deny that ** the 
promise unto you and to your children ' ' was the 
Abrahamic promise. Such say that it was the pre- 
diction of JoeL In answer to this it may be said 
that Peter's discourse ended with verse 2>^. The 
allusion to the promise is in another connection, and 
in answer to the question, What shall we do ? The 
prediction of Joel ii. 28-32, related to miraculous 
gifts at the time of setting up the gospel dispensa- 
tion. The promise was to be applicable to all ages 
and all nations. But the promise also includes the 
Holy Spirit, as we have proved. Gal. iii. 14. The 
miraculous gifts were to give signal to the apostles 
that the time had come for their public labor. Acts 
i. 8. The other was the ground for administering 
baptism to Jews^ and Gentiles. The persons ad- 
dressed were Jews, who always spoke of and under- 
stood the Abrahamic covenant as the promise. 

One believing parent gave to the children a right 
to the seal of the covenant in their consecration to 
God, I Cor. vii. 14. That there might not be any 
religious scruples, they were given to understand 
that the children of but one believing parent were 
not unclean. 

The phraseology^ ' ' baptizing of households, ' ' is 
consistent only with this view, Acts xvi. ^^; i Cor. 
i. 16. The faith of the head of the household is 
mentioned, and on that ground the household was 
received into the Church {covenant) . This was Jew- 
ish phraseology. 



l68 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

The fact that the New Testament and all ecclesi- 
astical history are silent in relation to any complaint 
of converted Jewish parents that the gospel excluded 
their children, is an evidence that the children of 
believers were admitted to baptism. This also 
shows that apostolic practice admitted them. 

The seal in the Gospel Church was baptism instead 
of circumcision. Proof: Circumcision was directly 
abolished though the covenant remained, Acts xv. 
22 to 29; I Cor. vii. 18-19; Gal. v. 1-4. Baptism 
was formally introduced by Christ as the sign of dis- 
cipleship. Matt, xxviii. 19; and the apostles urged it 
upon the ground of the promise to Abraham. Bap- 
tized Gentiles were put on the same ground in the 
Christian Church as circumcised Jews, Gal. iii. 28; 
Col. iii. II. Both circumcision and baptism are put 
to denote a clean heart, thus denoting the same 
thing, Deut. xxx. 6 ; Col. ii. 1 1 ; John iii. 5 ; i Pet. 
iii. 21. Circumcision was a seal of justifying faith 
in Christ, Rom. iv. 9 to 12; baptism is a pledge of 
the same thing, Gal. iii. 26-27. Circumcision and 
baptism are convertible terms and express the same 
state with Christ. Gentiles are not to be circum- 
cised, but only baptized, and yet Abraham is the 
father of circumcision to all Gentile believers, Rom. 
iv. 12. 

Objection 2. Infants cannot believe^ therefore they 
should not be baptized. 

{a) This objection is not psychologically true. The 
word belief in the objection means merely an intel- 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1 69 

lectual apprehension and understanding of the sys- 
tem of religion as taught in the sacred Scriptures. 
Infants cannot form a proper judgment of the divin- 
ity and humanity of Christ, of His death and resur- 
rection, of the nature of sin and grace, therefore 
they cannot believe, nor indeed be saved. So we 
might infer from the objection. 

It is true, our children have no knowledge of what 
takes place in their baptism ; for they have yet no 
understanding of the nature of things. But does it 
therefore follow that nothing whatever transpires in 
them internally? Have they not the faculty of rea- 
son and conscience, have they not natural and moral 
susceptibility? Do not the germs of these things lie 
implanted in the new-born child ? Who will mark 
the day in which the same will become active ? The 
beginning of our inner spiritual life lies far beyond 
our understanding or comprehension. Even later in 
life, how much lies beyond the bounds of compre- 
hension which has not yet entered into our spiritual 
life ! The bounds of our comprehension or knowl- 
edge are much narrower than the sphere of our 
spiritual life. And manifold spiritual and moral 
developments do we experience without our fully 
comprehending them. ** The Spirit itself maketh 
intercession for us with groanings which cannot be 
uttered," Rom. viii. 26. Who will, therefore, set 
bounds to the Spirit of God, over which He cannot 
go ? He has His work in the soul of a child as well 
as in the soul of one who is grown up. 



170 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

But this communion with God is yet especially to 
become a matter of consciousness. We therefore 
permit confirmation to follow baptism. Not in order 
to make baptism complete, for this it is already ; not 
in order to renew it, for it is the beginning once for 
all; but that the baptized himself assume that on 
which he has been baptized, and that he express it 
with his own mouth ; that the covenant of God in 
baptism be also a covenant of the understanding and 
will, and that he receive the blessing at once during 
the years of his moral development and his spiritual 
experience. With confirmation we combine the be- 
ginning of the Lord's Supper, and herewith the 
entrance into full communion in the Christian 
Church. 

Luther says : * * If the Word is connected with the 
water, baptism must be regarded as proper and 
valid, even if faith is not connected with it. For my 
faith does not constitute baptism, but it receives and 
apprehends it. Baptism is not vitiated or corrupted 
by men abusing it or not properly receiving it, for 
it is not bound to our faith, but to the Word of the 
Lord." The same is true with .regard to the in- 
tention or opinion of the persons who administer it, 
and baptism, even by a heretic, if its essentials are 
retained, is not invalid. 

To show further that the objection that children 
cannot believe and therefore should not be baptized, 
is not psychologically true, we will furnish the 
reader with two quotations, one from Dr. Jacobs, 
and another from Dr. S chaff. 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. I7I 

Dr. Jacobs, in his very excellent book on the 
Elements of Religion, says : * ' The question whether 
infants can be regenerated is the same as whether 
infants can have faith. If everything that charac- 
terizes the faith of adults be regarded essential to 
faith, i. e., if faith at an advanced stage of develop- 
ment be made the universal test of faith, we cannot 
ascribe it to infants. The scholastics laid great em- 
phasis on the intellectual side of faith. " To be- 
lieve, ' ' says Thomas Aquinas, ' ' implies the consider- 
ation of the intellect, combined with examination and 
consent on the part of the will. " " To believe is 
an act of the intellect assenting to divine truth, 
arising from a determination of the will impelled by 
grace." This means that faith can exist only as a 
truth is presented to the intellect, and to which after 
deliberation, inquiry and examination, the will de- 
termines to assent. The Reformers were especially 
emphatic in maintaining that this conception over- 
looked the most important element of faith, viz., 
confidence. The dogmaticians accordingly added 
" confidence " and analyzed the entire conception 
of faith into the three elements, of knowledge, assent 
and confidence. But since where there is no confi- 
dence there is no faith, knowledge and assent do not 
belong to the essence of faith. They are the pre- 
requisites of a mature faith. They are inevitably 
found where there is faith in a doctrine. I cannot, 
in the proper sense, believe a doctrine unless I have 
been taught what it is^ and assented to it^ and then 



172 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

determine that my life shall be regulated according 
to it. Such faith in the doctrines of revelation will 
be the necessary result of faith in the person who 
reveals them. But the essence of faith given in re- 
generation is confidence or trust in a person. It is 
that temper or disposition of the heart towards God 
by which the person is rendered capable of receiving 
whatever God offers, and of responding to every 
word of God through new powers wherewith God 
has endowed him. 

Infants are, therefore, incapable of acts of faith, 
although they have a habit of faith; just as they are 
incapable of acts of sin, although they have, in nat- 
ural depravity or original sin, a sinful habit. We 
say that men have an innate knowledge of God. By 
this we do not mean that they are conscious of the 
existence and presence of God, and of any relations 
in which they stand to Him, bu.t only that the 
human mind is endowed with faculties that inev- 
itably draw the conclusion of the existence and of 
certain attributes of God from the contemplation of 
nature. In like manner we claim that when, on the 
basis of certain texts of Scripture, we teach the pos- 
sibility of infant regeneration, the faith that is 
therein said to be wrought must correspond to other 
determinations of their spiritual nature. The faith 
of infants is like the knowledge and sin of infants. 
The actual presence is not disproved by the fact that 
it is not consciously present. The faith may lie 
dormant, like the words of Christ to the apostles, 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. I 73 

until the Holy Spirit recalled them, or like the at- 
tainments of a scholar while he is sleeping;. ' * 

Dr. Schaff, in his ^' History of the Apostolic 
Church," on the same point, says: " But now, as to 
the second proposition of the Baptist argument, the 
incapacity of children for faith, whence follows their 
exclusion from baptism : this is granted, if by faith 
we understand a self-conscious^ free turning- of the 
heart to God. This cannot take place till the dawn 
of intelligence (for which, by the way, no certain 
period can be fixed), and in view of this, infant bap- 
tism needs to be completed in the subject, according 
to ancient usage, by catechetical instruction and con- 
firmation, in which the Christian, arrived at the age 
of spiritual discretion, ratifies his baptismal confes- 
sion and of his free determination gives himself to 
Ged. For this reason also the baptism of the chil- 
dren of unbelieving, though nominally Christian, 
parents, is in reality unmeaning, or rather a profana- 
tion of the holy transaction ; since there is here a 
hypocritical profession of faith and no guarantee of 
an education answering to the baptismal vow. But 
the grand error of the proposition before us is that 
the conception of faith in general, and with" it the 
agency of the H0I5'' Ghost, is limited to and made to 
depend on a particular stage of the development of 
the human mind, and that the various formes and 
phases of divine operation and of faith are over- 
looked. The ground and condition of salvation lie 
not at all in the subject or creature, but in the 



174 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

depths of the divine mercy ; and in faith itself we 
must observe different stages, from the germ to the 
perfect fruit. Faith begins with religious suscepti- 
bility, with an unconscious longing for the divine, 
and a childlike trust in a higher power. It is not a 
product of human thought, understanding, feeling, 
or will, but a work of the grace and of the Spirit of 
God, who is bound to no age or degree of intelli- 
gence, but operates as the wind blows, when and 
where He will. Faith does not produce the bless- 
ings of salvation, but simply receives them, and 
only in this respect, as a receptive, not a productive 
organ, is it saving; otherwise, salvation would be a 
work of the creature. 

Now this receptivity fc5r the divine, or faith in its 
incipient form and slumbering germ, may be found 
in the child even purer than in the adult. In virtue 
of its religious constitution and endowments the 
child is susceptible to the influence of grace and may 
be actually regenerated. If a man deny this he 
must, to be consistent, condemn all children without 
exception to perdition. For they, like all men, are 
conceived in sin (Ps. li. 5), flesh born of flesh (John 
iii. 6), and by nature the children of wrath (Eph. ii. 
3 ; comp. Rom. iii. 22-24) ; ^-nd except a man be bom 
again of water and of the Spirit, according to our 
Lord's unequivocal declaration, he cannot enter the 
kingdom of God (Jno. iii. 5). " He that believeth 
not shall be damned," Mark xvi. 16. When Baptists 
and some other theologians, therefore, admit at least 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1 75 

some infants into heaven without regeneration or 
faith, they either deny original sin and guilt after 
the manner of Pelagianism or open a way of salva- 
tion unknown, nay, directly opposed, to the gospel. 
There are also, however, explicit passages in the 
Scriptures which have no doubt respecting the ca- 
pacity of childhood and infancy for the divine. Not 
to mention the extraordinary case of John the Bap- 
tist, who even in his mother's womb was filled with 
the Holy Ghost, Luke i. 15-41. We know from 
Matt, xviii. 2-5; xix. 14-15; Mark x. 14-15; Luke 
xviii. 16-17, that the Saviour Himself took children 
into His arms, blessed them, and adjudged them 
meet for the kingdom of heaven; nay. He required 
also adults to became children again, to cultivate the 
simple, unassuming, confiding, susceptible disposi- 
tion of the child, if they would have part in that 
kingdom. Should the Church refuse baptism, that 
is the sign and seal of entrance into Christ's king- 
dom, to the tender age which the Lord Himself 
pressed to His loving heart ? Should she hold off 
from her communion as incapable and unworthy the 
infants whom the Head of the Church presented 
even as models to all who would be His disciples ? 
Rather must we conclude from this, strange as it 
may appear, that every baptism^ even in the case of 
adults^ is really an infant baptism^ because Christ 
makes the childlike spirit an indispensable condition 
of entrance into His kingdom, and because baptism 
in general, as the sacrament of regeneration, de- 



176 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

mands of every candidate the renunciation of his 
former sinful life in repentance, and the beginning 
of a new^ holy life in faith, " 

(b) The objection is not in accordance with the 
Scriptures and therefore is of no force. We are 
told by St. Paul that the children of Israel were all 
baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 
I Cor. X. 2. Were there any children baptized unto 
Moses? Most assuredly. But did these understand 
the nature of their baptism unto Moses? They were 
taught this relation as they were brought under the 
divine tuition. They were baptized first, then 
taught, as is done in the Christian church. 

All this the apostle says is an allegory of baptism 
in the Christian Church. ' ' These things were our 
examples." But if the baptizing of these children 
unto Moses does not find its type in infant baptism, 
in what other thing shall we find its answer in the 
Christian Church? If children could be baptized 
unto Moses, what shall hinder them from being bap- 
tized unto Christ"* If those children were baptized 
unto Moses, on the faith of their parents, who shall 
hinder the children of Christian parents from being 
baptized on the faith of their parents? Is not the 
salvation of our children as near and dear to us as 
Christian parents as was the salvation of the Hebrew 
children to their parents? The desire of infant bap- 
tism springs, first of all, from the need of regarding 
the children of Christian parents as belonging to 
Christ, not merely on the ground of the will of the 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 177 

Church but of Christ Himself, and of regarding the 
age of childhood as consecrated and hallowed by- 
Christ, who lived through and hallowed all the 
periods of our life. On. this point Dr. Dorner says 
most beautifully : ' ' The natural bonds between par- 
ents and children are not reduced to insignificance 
in Christianity, but acknowledged in their impor- 
tance, as was done even in the Old Testament by- 
circumcision. These bonds are not simply left by 
Christian parents to their quiet unconscious influ- 
ence, but contain a definite hint to them that they 
should present their children to Christ, nay, that 
through them God wishes their children brought 
into the number of Christ's disciples, a sign of His 
grace directed toward children. This may be gath- 
ered from I Cor. vii. 14, and Old Testament circum- 
cision. This natural connection involves the duty, 
and therefore the right, of parents to present their 
children to Christ. To say in objection that conse- 
cration in reference to children is already implied in\ 
the natural connection, and that baptism is therefore 
needless for them, would be to attach more impor- 
tance to the bond of nature connecting children with 
Christian parents, and thus indirectly with Christ, 
than to a direct bond of union with Christ. But the 
former view would only be sufficient on the supposi- 
tion of parents ascribing the power of consecra- 
tion to themselves. On the other hand, the more 
that parents and the Church are conscious of their 
needy condition and dependence on Christ, the more 
12 



I7o BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

must they go back in behalf of their children, not 
to their own substitutionary consecration, but to 
Christ's alone sufficient substitution, seek His bless- 
ing and cling to its expression in the baptism of the 
Lord's own institution, which of itself points to 
Christ's substitutionary death and life. All the 
more have Christian parents the right to seek 
Christ's blessing and consecration, as the presenting 
of their children accords with His mind; for He did 
not reject the parents who presented their children 
to Him, that He might touch them, lay His hands 
on them and pray for them, as if He could do noth- 
ing with them, or they had nothing to do with Him, 
but He said: * Suffer the little children to come 
unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the 
kingdom of God,' and He had compassion on them, 
laid His hands upon them and blessed them. This 
blessing and reception into His love might take the 
place of baptism to them. Thus, then, the Church 
in conformity with His institution offers itself to Him 
as an organ for the continuance of His purpose, that 
through its hands He may baptize the little ones 
and take them into His arms as His possession. 
The Church cannot be poorer than the Synagogue ; 
the new covenant cannot express less love than the 
covenant of circumcision, whose benefit applied also 
to children. The first sermon of Peter alludes to 
this. At the same time, the natural fellowship of 
the parents renders this service, that their recollec- 
tion of the child's baptism is a substitute for the 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1 79 

child's- own knowledge, and in due time this knowl- 
edge is communicated to the child after self-con- 
sciousness is aAvakened. ' ' 

Again, the Psalmist says: " Thou didst make me 
hope when I was upon my mother's breasts," Ps. 
xxii. 9. The idea is that from his earliest years he 
had been led to trust in God ; and he now pleads 
this fact as a reason why He should interpose to save 
him. Applied to the Redeemer as a man, it means 
that in His earliest childhood He had trusted in God. 
His first breathings were those of piety. His first 
aspirations were for the divine favor. His first 
love was the love of God. If the infant Jesus hoped 
when He was on His mother's breasts, who will say 
that He was not a believer then ? If you place the 
infant Jesus among the unbelievers, where are you ? 
But the Holy Ghost has given us the proof that 
Jesus was then among the believers by the sign of 
the covenant which was placed upon Him. 

But if the Holy Ghost made Jesus hope upon His 
mother's breasts, may He not do the same with all 
the children that are consecrated to Him in holy 
baptism ? That He has to do with children in this 
respect may be proved from Psalm viii. 2 : " Out of 
the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou or- 
dained strength because of Thine enemies, that 
Thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger." 
This passage is quoted by the Saviour in Matthew 
xxi. 16, to vindicate the conduct of the children in 
the temple crying, ' ' Hosanna to the Son of David, ' * 



l8o BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

against the objections of the Pharisees and Scribes. 
Jesus said unto them, " Have ye not read, out of the 
mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected 
praise ? " If God has perfected praise out of the 
mouth of babes and sucklings, who will say against 
the witness of Jesus, that children baptized into the 
Trinity do not belong to the believers ? If they 
were reckoned with unbelievers, would their praise 
be the most perfect in the ears of God ? Be assured, 
Christian parents, that your children baptized sus- 
tain a much nearer relation to God and the Church 
than the opposers of infant baptism imagine. 

We, also, here call attention to Matt, xviii. 6: 
* ' But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which 
believe in Me, it were better for him that a mill- 
stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were 
drowned in the depth of the sea. ' ' The context and 
all go to show that the Saviour had little children 
here in view, when He uttered these precious words, 
for He had called a little child to Him, and had set 
him in the midst of His disciples. At any rate, this 
passage is as applicable to little children as it is to 
weak adult believers. For the Saviour, by this cir- 
cumstance, has evidently placed little children 
among the believers, and therefore the objection to 
their baptism on this ground is invalid. It is about 
time that this objection, therefore, to infant baptism, 
be laid aside, for it is exceedingly weak, i Cor. vii. 14. 

(c.) The objector's own practice refutes him. He 
says you must not baptize children, because they do 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. l8l 

not believe (which he has not proved, and cannot 
prove), yet he often baptizes adults who do not be- 
lieve. Luther says : * * This is a nice point. ' ' When, 
however, adults, who are not really believers, like 
Simon Magus (Acts viii. 21), at the time of their 
baptism, become awakened afterwards and become 
true believers, they have no need of being re-bap- 
tized, for their baptism is valid. But our objectors 
do not re-baptize such. Why, therefore, will these 
objectors not make their objections correspond with 
their own practice ? 

We once asked one of the River Brethren, who are 
also Tunkers, " How do you River Brethren differ 
from the regular Tunkers ? ' ' To this he replied, 
" We believe more in heart religion than the Tunk- 
ers. We want experimental religion. We go in 
more for the spiritual work. The regular Tunkers 
baptize unbelievers." However much truth there 
might be in this statement about the regular Tunk- 
ers, we asked the same person, " Whether they did 
not also sometimes get unbelievers into the Church 
by their baptism ? ' ' To this he replied, " It is only 
too true. ' ' 

Objection J. How can parents believe for their chil- 
dren ? It is looked upon as settled by these objec- 
tors that parents cannot believe for their children in 
holy baptism 

In answer to this objection, we say that parents 
must believe for their children in feeding them, in 
clothing them, in educating them; why not then 



l82 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

also in making disciples of them? When your child 
is sick you believe a certain kind of food will help 
it, and you administer the food. What does the 
child know what is food or what is poison? Why 
so alarmed about its life when it happens to get hold 
of poison ? Why not leave it to its natural instinct ? 
You, however, say no, the child must not in such a 
case be left to itself. Its life would be in danger; 
you must believe for it in such a case. 

But is not the spiritual life of the child just as 
much in danger of the spiritual poison, which is 
in every place where its eyes rest ? The soul 
must be educated or * ' exercised to discern both good 
and evil. ' ' To this the Lord alludes, when He says : 
* ' Train up a child in the way he should go : and 
when he is old he will not depart from it," Prov. 
xxii. 6. In what way would you have your child go ? 
In the way of sin, in the broad way, or in the narrow 
way? If you would have him go in the narrow way, 
why not take him with you in the covenant of grace, 
and train him up in the way of the Church ? We 
have the divine assurance that the early training for 
the Church will be abundantly blessed by the Lord. 
It is nothing but unbelief that keeps children from 
the baptism of the Church, to which they have just 
as good a title, if not better, than adult believers ; for 
they are put by the Saviour on the same ground, 
and besides they have a special call. ' * Christianity, 
which is the absolute religion, embracing within itself 
all religious truth and power, finds its most perfect 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1 83 

expression in infant baptism. In the same way, in 
it the nature of prevenient grace is set in the clearest 
light. In infant baptism the Church opposes the 
notion that Christian grace does not hold good for 
childhood. Children are indeed but imperfect 
Christians, but still they are Christians, because 
Christ has received them. In virtue of Christ's all- 
embracing purpose of grace, the individual within 
Christendom has a right to claim that no portion of 
his life shall be outside Christianity. This is secured 
to him by infant baptism. ' * 

And if you are anxious that your children should 
be clothed with comfortable and beautiful garments, 
why not also provide for them the means by which 
they may secure the garment of righteousness ? Do 
they not need such a garment ? ' * That which is 
born of the flesh is flesh. ' ' They must be born also 
of the Spirit. Is it more likely that they will secure 
the Spirit without baptism than with baptism ? The 
baptism of the Spirit is mentioned by Jesus after 
baptism with water. Here are His words: " Ex- 
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John iii. 5. 
Jesus Himself was first baptized with water, and 
then He received the baptism of the Spirit, Matt, 
iii. 16. 

But the Saviour Himself has commanded us to 
make disciples of our children by baptizing, as we 
have seen in the great commission. If He had 
meant that children should be excluded. He would 



164 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

most assuredly have said so ; but His silence in this 
respect is proof of the strongest kind that it was His 
good will and pleasure that they should be included 
in the commission with their parents, and so we un-* 
derstand it. 

Besides, we are commanded to consecrate all we 
have and all we are to the Lord. Here is the com- 
mand: " I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the 
mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living 
sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your 
reasonable service, " Rom. xii. i. Does this mean 
that we should consecrate everything to God but our 
children ? There is no exception ; the command in- 
cludes the body and all its fruits. Are not our chil- 
dren the fruits of our bodies ? Do we not pray 
for our children? Do we not carry them on sup- 
plicating hearts ? How can we do this without 
believing for them ? But if they have no part in the 
covenant, how can we pray and believe for them ? 

The woman of Canaan believed for her little 
daughter, who was ** grievously vexed with a 
devil." Yet the mother prayed unto Him, saying, 
* ' Have mercy on me, O Lord, Thou Son of David. ' ' 
It was the mother's cause as well as the daughter's. 
It is likely that the little daughter did not even 
know that the mother had gone to Jesus to get her 
cured, but she learned this afterwards whence help 
came against the evil spirit which tormented her. 
For the Lord at length honored most graciously the 
mother's faith, when He said to her, ** O woman, 



OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1 85 

great is thy faith : be it unto thee even as thou wilt. 
And her daughter was made whole from that very 
hour. ' ' 

The nobleman of Capernaum also believed for his 
child, John iv. 50. Jesus said to him, " Go thy way; 
thy son liveth. ' ' 

Are not our children also afflicted with the devil 
when they show evil dispositions arising in them 
from which, unless they be delivered, they will 
finally fall under his power ? Satan seeks to destroy 
our children, and will destroy them if they grow up 
without religious culture such as is received in the 
training of the Christian Church in baptism. We 
cannot look after the spiritual welfare of our chil- 
dren too soon. But if you do not believe that Jesus 
has any regard for your children, you will not bring 
them to Him. The unbelief is not on the side of 
the children, but on the side of the neglectful par- 
ents. If our children are finally lost, whose fault is 
it ? If we would bring them to Jesus, as the woman 
of Canaan and the nobleman of Capernaum, how 
our children would be found walking in the truth ! 

But Baptists contend on Pelagian grounds, that 
infants are saved by their innocence, and without 
regeneration. Lutherans contend and maintain 
that infants are saved as sinful beings for Christ's 
sake, and after renewal by the Holy Spirit, who is 
offered in baptism, in which they are to be nurtured 
by the Church. 

We conclude our discussion on Infant Baptism 



l86 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

with another quotation from the immortal Luther: 
** Now," says Luther, " if baptism can remain right 
and complete, though the Christian fall from faith 
or commit sin a thousand times in a year ; and if it 
is sufficient for him to reform himself again in a 
proper manner and believe, and it be unnecessary 
for him to be rebaptized; why should not the first 
baptism also be sufficient and right, if the Christian 
afterwards becomes right and believes? For there 
is no difference in a baptism without faith, since it 
is equally void of faith, whether there be no experi- 
ence of faith before or after the administration. If 
it is without faith, it must, as the Anabaptists fool- 
ishly pretend, be altered according to the expression, 
* He that belie veth. ' 

" I assert, therefore, that even if these opposers 
could prove their position, that children are desti- 
tute of faith, which we have shown to be false, they 
would still have established nothing more by their 
contention, than that the true baptism, which God 
has instituted, was not received rightly, but in spirit 
of abuse. Yet he who proves nothing more than 
abuse, proves no more indeed than that the abuse 
must be remedied, and not the ceremony must be 
repeated. For abuse alters the nature of nothing. 
Gold does not become straw, if a thief steals and 
abuses it. Silver does not become paper, if a usurer 
unjustly gains it. ' ' 



PART III. 
FEET-WASHING. 



CHAPTER XV. 

FEET-WASHING NOT A SACRAMENT. 

There are some persons who contend that Feet- 
Washing is a Christian Sacrament or ordinance, 
binding on all generations of Christians, like Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper, to be practiced in the public 
assemblies of the Church ; and that whoever neglects 
Feet-Washing in the public assemblies of the Church, 
is guilty of violating the commandment of the Lord, 
where He says: "Ye call Me Master and Lord: and 
ye say well ; for so I am. If I then your Lord and 
Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to 
wash one another's feet. For I have given you an 
example, that ye should do as I have done to you, ' ' 
John xiii. 13-15. 

The principal argument for feet-washing as a 
Christian Sacrament, to be practiced in the public 
assemblies of the Church, is based on the literal 
interpretation of these words of our blessed Lord. 
If these words are to be taken in their literal aspect 
as separated from the time and occasion when they 
were delivered, there could perhaps be but one con- 
clusion. But in our interpretation of this passage 
of Scripture we must take into consideration the time 

(189) 



IpO BAPTISM AND FEET- WASHING. 

and occasion when it was delivered. Scripture 
must be interpreted by Scripture. " Comparing 
spiritual things with spiritual," i Cor. ii. 13. 

If all the commands of Christ to His first disciples, 
who were Jews, were binding on us Gentile Chris- 
tians, we should have a hard time indeed. We 
would all have to become Jews. For example: 
" The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all 
therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that 
observe and do ; but do not ye after their works : for 
they say, and do not," Matt, xxiii. 2, 3. The ten- 
dency of some of the sects of the present day has, 
indeed, a Judaizing cast in their interpretation of 
Christian doctrine and practice. But we have one 
grand decision by the first Apostolic Council against 
all such Judaizing tendency in the Christian Church. 
It is found in the Acts of the Apostles, xv. 23-29: 
* ' And they wrote letters by them after this manner ; 
The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting 
unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in An- 
tioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have 
heard that certain which went out from us have 
troubled you with words, subverting your souls, say- 
ing. Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law ; to 
whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed 
good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to 
send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barna- 
bas and Paul, men who have hazarded their lives for 
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent 
therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the 



FEET- WASHING NOT SACRAMENT. I9I 

same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the 
Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater 
burden than these necessary things ; that ye abstain 
from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and 
from things strangled, and from fornication: from 
which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare 
ye w^ell. ' ' The Holy Ghost does not lay unnecessary 
burdens, such as the Jews imposed upon themselves, 
upon the Gentile Christians. This Apostolic letter 
shows that * * the kingdom of God is not meat and 
drink : but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the 
Holy Ghost. For he that in those things serveth 
Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men, ' ' 
Rom. xiv. 17, 18. 

Let us mention a few commandments which, 
separated from their contexts, are just as explicit as 
that on Feet- washing, when separated from its con- 
text. 

Jesus said: " He that hath no sword, let him sell 
his garment, and buy one, " Luke xxii. 36. From 
the explicit and positive form of these words, the 
disciples supposed at first that the Saviour meant 
swords, and that He commanded them to furnish 
themselves with literal swords ; and His words liter- 
ally interpreted, from their connection, imply it. 
For the disciples answered: " Lord, behold, here 
are two swords. ' ' But did the Saviour really mean 
that His words should be taken in their literal im- 
port, separated from the time and occasion when 
they were uttered ? Most assuredly not. He and 



192 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

His disciples were then in the garden of Gethsem> 
ane, and He by this command gave His disciples 
warning of the coming danger ; for He knew what 
was coming. As if He would say: " If any will 
travel through the dangers before him and is desti- 
tute of a sword for defence, it were better to sell his 
very cloak and buy a sword, than go unarmed. For I 
assure you that this Scriptural intimation has yet to 
be accomplished in My case. ' ' 

" E'en yields He to be reckoned with the vile, 
In infamy by many, in doom by Heaven." 

Yes, every minute prediction concerning the Mes- 
siah is to be fully verified. " Master," said the disci- 
ples, who had been searching among their garments 
for weapons, * * here are two swords. " ' ' Never mind 
about supplying yourselves literally with arms," 
returned He ; ** that will do on that subject. " 

This command, therefore, to buy swords, as is 
proved by the disregard of Christ for the two weap- 
ons actually produced by His disciples, as well as by 
His pacificatory conduct on the use of one of them 
(Matt. xxvi. 52," Put up again thy sword into his 
place : for all they that take the sword shall perish 
with the sword "), was only designed as a general 
intimation of the hazards to which they would soon 
be exposed. But this intelligent conclusion could 
not be reached if the command to buy a sword were 
separated from its Scriptural connection. Scripture 
must be explained by Scripture. 



FEET-WASHINC NOT SACRAMENT. 193 

Again " Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: 
and salute no man by the way. Go not from house to 
house," Luke x. 4-7. Have we not here command- 
ments as direct and explicit as that on Feet-wash- 
ing ? If you take these as literal commands to us, 
then it is wrong for a Christian missionary to carry 
a purse, or satchel, or shoes. Over against this lit- 
eral arbitrary interpretation of the Scriptures, time, 
climate and circumstances avail nothing, for here 
are the commands of the Lord. How far could a 
traveling missionary get nowadays in his work if he 
would interpret these commands literally? We had 
this very argument once used against us by a certain 
person in our efforts to collect missionary money. 
The fellow took the Saviour's words literally. Sup- 
pose such a one should enter the cars at some sta- 
tion, with a distant point in view, and the conductor 
should come around to collect the fare, what would 
be the answer ? - Would the missionary say, * ' Mr. 
Conductor, I am a minister of the Gospel, and I am 
on my way to the most distant point on your road, 
but as my Master has commanded me to provide 
neither purse, nor satchel, nor shoes, you perceive 
I am not able to pay my fare. " At the next station 
that missionary would very likely find himself put off 
the cars, with the reply of a literal command from 
the same Lord, ' ' Thou shalt not steal. ' ' But sup- 
pose the missionary were really sane, he would then 
be compelled to travel on foot, over all roads and in 
all weather. But how could he do this in all cli- 
13 



194 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

mates without shoes ? What, also, would he do for 
a change of linen, if he were not permitted to carry 
a satchel ? And what about saluting people by the 
way ? He would not even be permitted to kiss any 
of his brethren by the way, for the command is lit- 
erally, ' * Salute no man by the way. ' ' How many 
are breaking this commandment by the way ! They 
have become so hardened on this subject of saluta- 
tion that they even salute their brethren by the w^ay, 
when their Master has explicitly told them, ' ' Salute 
no ma7i by the way. ' ' The white brethren do not 
seem to have any conscience, except in case of the 
black brethren, on this subject. What a dreadful 
world this is getting to be ! 

But what about this: *' Go not from house to 
house ? " If this should be literally carried out, 
what would those people say who want their pastors 
to be going from house to house all the time? 

It must be plain therefore, that many of the Sav- 
iour's commandments to His immediate disciples 
are not of universal or literal application. So with 
the pretended command of Feet-washing as a relig- 
ious ordinance of the Church. 

In the above case the Lord meant that the people 
among whom they labored should furnish them all 
the necessary things; for He adds, " The workman 
is worthy of his meat," Matt. x. lo. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED. 

The nature and form of the language employed in 
the passage under consideration, is really not in the 
form of a positive command. If this point can be 
made out, then the very foundation of this pretended 
sacrament of Feet-washing will be destroyed ; for all 
sacraments must rest on the positive commands of 
the Lord. But this point will be more fully dis- 
cussed further on in the argument. 

Let us, then, here carefully examine the language 
of the text under consideration: " If I then, your 
Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also 
ought to wash one another's feet." The Lord here 
places this matter of Feet-washing wholly on moral 
grounds, not on a positive command. The language 
is that of moral reasoning. If he is willing to take 
the place of a servant, why should not they? ** The 
disciple is not above his master, nor the servant 
above his lord," Matt. x. 24. It was the duty of 
one of them to take the place of a servant, to wash 
the feet of the guests, already reclining on couches 
around the table smoking with the Paschal Supper, 
but their proud altercation about pre-eminence, just 
(==95) 



196 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

as they were about to take their relative positions, 
would not allow such condescension. But in the 
midst of the delay the Master Himself arose, laid 
aside His garments, took a towel, girded Himself, 
poured water into a basin, and washed the disciples' 
feet, all in the form of a servant. Then, said He, 
after resuming His place at the table, " If I then, 
your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye 
also ought to wash one another's feet." You see 
He puts the matter wholly on moral grounds, not on 
a positive command. There are positive ordinances 
and moral observances : the positive resting alone on' 
the authority of the lawgiver; the moral growing 
out of the nature and fitness of things. Take some 
of the positive commandments, for illustration, as 
enumerated by St. Paul: " Thou shalt not commit 
adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal. 
Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not 
covet, ' ' These are all positive^ but throw them into 
a moral form, and see the difference : ' * Thou ought- 
est not to kill. Thou oughtest not to steal. Thou 
oughtest not to bear false witness. Thou oughtest 
not to covet. ' ' This would put the whole matter on 
moral grounds or the fitness of things. 

God, as the moral legislator, has established posi- 
tive institutions which are valid through all time. 
They are the Church, the Sacraments (Baptism and 
the Lord's Supper), the Sabbath, Family and Civil 
Government; but Feet-washing, as a sacrament, 
rests on no positive legislation. 



THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED. 1 97 

But the Saviour, in the language employed, " If 
I then, ' ' etc. , speaks of a moral duty growing out of 
the nature and fitness of things, out of the relation 
of Master and disciples. Who would ever suppose 
2. positive institution to be established by an ''If? " 
There are no i/s in the decalogue ; there are none in 
Baptism; there are none in the Lord's Supper. But 
in this pretended sacrament of Feet-washing there 
is an * 'I/, " " If I then, ' ' etc. 

But the advocates of Feet-w^ashing as a sacrament 
will find as little help in the word ought. Ought im- 
plies moral duty or obligation. St. Paul says : ' * We 
that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the 
weak," Rom. xv, i. Ought is spoken of what the 
circumstances of time, place, persons, and relations 
render proper or fit. On this point Olshausen says : 
* ' After completing the process, the Redeemer again 
reclined at the Supper, and instructed His disciples 
concerning the import of what He had done. He 
speaks first of the subordinate relation in which they 
themselves acknowledged that they stood to Him. 
(The names disciples and Master^ according to the 
Rabbinical view, denote the relation of learners to 
teachers, which involved the obligation upon the 
former to serve the latter.) Hence it would follow 
that it was their duty to serve Him ; nevertheless, 
He had ministered to them from condescending love. ' ' 

Besides, how could the Saviour have said, " Ye 
ought ^ ' ' in this case, if the whole matter was not 
resting on moral grounds? If Feet-washing had then 



198 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

for the first time been instituted as a Christian sacra- 
ment, how could the disciples have violated a com- 
mandment before it was promulgated? " Where no 
law is, there is no transgression," Rom. iv. 15. It 
is admitted that Feet-washing by the Saviour was 
accomplished before He spoke the words under con- 
sideration. Look at the context : * * So after He had 
washed their feet, and had taken His garments, and 
was set down again. He said unto them. Know ye 
what I have done ? Ye call Me Master and Lord : 
and ye say well ; for so I am. If I then, ' ' etc. How, 
therefore, could He as a just Saviour have accused 
His disciples of violating a commandment, if it is a 
commandment, before it was promulgated ? 

Therefore since Christ has based His appeal to His 
disciples, that they ' ' also ought to wash one another's 
feet, ' ' on moral grounds, on the relation which they 
as learners sustained to Him as teacher, as some- 
thing growing out of the nature of things, His wash- 
ing the disciples' feet must be regarded as an illus- 
tration of some moral principle, which they had just 
been violating. What principle was this ? It was 
the principle of humility. Humility is a moral duty. 
The servant is not above his lord. 

Let us here see what Dr. Hickok says, in his 
Moral Science, about this virtue of humility: ** Hu- 
mility, in its true meaning, is a virtue that propor- 
tions itself relatively in the being that exercises it. 
To all finite beings, humility is a duty and a virtue. 
It consists in the assent of a person to take the pre- 



THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED. I99 

cise position which is due to his own proportional 
intrinsic excellency. We speak not now of the hu- 
mility of a sinner, which must partake of shame and 
remorse, but the humility of spiritual beings in the 
presence of the Absolute Jehovah, as a moral virtue. 
Whatever grades of spiritual life there may be from 
human to archangel, through all the ranks of 
' ' thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, ' ' 
that is humility which, in reverent adoration of the 
Most High, cordially assents to its own place among 
the worshipers, and the highest in the classified 
ranks, while he casts his crown before the throne, 
and veils his face with his wings, will be as truly 
virtuous in his humility as the lowest. The right- 
eous order would be as truly broken in the degrada- 
tion of the higher as in the undue exaltation of the 
lower, and each is truly humble and morally virtuous 
in his humility, when he bows rejoicingly before 
God in the very place which his relative excellency 
assigns to him. There is no pride, no self-conceit, 
but the virtue of universal liberty, in that world 
where God is too great to be either proud or humble, 
and where all finite being fills just the sphere of its 
own spiritual excellence with divine adoration and 
praise. ' ' 

Christ's language implies that He was, in this act 
of washing the disciples' feet, illustrating the sub- 
lime moral principle of humility : * ' For I have given 
you an example, that ye should do as I have done to 
you." This corresponds with that other beautiful 



200 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

passage in Phil. ii. 5-1 1 : " Let this mind be in yon, 
which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the 
form o£ God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God : but made Himself of no reputation, and took 
upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in 
the likeness of men : and being found in fashion as a 
man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore 
God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a 
name which is above every name : that at the name 
of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, 
and things on earth, and things under the earth ; and 
that e very-tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is 
Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ' ' 

How absurd, therefore, the strife of the Apostles 
about pre-eminence in the presence of such a being, 
the Holy One and the Just 1 And deeply must they 
have felt humbled when they saw their sublime Mas- 
ter and Lord condescend to perform a duty which 
they ought to have done! No wonder Peter ex- 
claimed, " Lord, dost Thou wash my feet? " Jesus 
replied, ' ' What I do thou knowest not now, but thou 
shalt know hereafter! ' ' Peter learned the lesson by 
his great fall and restoration. After this he could 
write, " Be clothed with humility," i Pet. v. 5. 

This moral principle of humility, therefore, the 
disciples had violated by their strife, and hence 
Christ's act of washing their feet and of His subse- 
quent admonition. Therefore as Christ has placed 
all this on moral grounds, Feet- washing cannot be a 



THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED. 20I 

sacrament established by Christ, to be practiced in 
the public assemblies of the Church throughout all 
generations of Christians. 

And this for the following reasons : 

I. Feet- washing contains none of the elements of 
a sacrament. The elements necessary to constitute 
a sacrament are three: the 7iatural element, the 
spiritual element, and the Divine command. Try by 
this rule the sacraments about which there is no dis- 
pute. Take the Sacrament of Baptism. In this we 
have water, which is the natural element ; the words 
of the institution, ' ' I baptize thee in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ' ' 
which is the spiritual element ; and the Divine com- 
mand, "Go," etc. Take next the Lord's Supper. 
The natural element is bread and wine ; the spiritual 
element, " This is My body," " This is My blood;" 
and the Divine command, ' ' Do this. ' ' But when 
we come to examine this pretended sacrament of 
Feet- washing, we shall find that it lacks all these 
elements. We have already shown that the admoni- 
tion of the Saviour is placed on moral grounds, 
growing out of the nature and fitness of things, and 
out of the moral relations which the disciples as 
learners sustained to Jesus as their Master, and not 
on a positive commandment that we as Gentile 
Christians should wash one another's feet in the 
public assemblies of the Church. Feet- washing has 
also no words of institution ; no Divine formula of 
holy words is given, as in the two sacraments men- 



202 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

tioned. It has no element but water. But water in 
itself cannot constitute a sacrament. 

On this point Luther says : * * Indeed it is true the 
two parts (the natural and the heavenly elements) 
belong to a sacrament, but still they are not sufficient 
by themselves to constitute a sacrament — one thing 
more belongs to it, that we may have the Trinity in 
full, namely the Divine injunction and command. 
If you can establish this, that the Divine Majesty in 
heaven says, "I have ordained and enjoined it," 
then these two parts are quite sufficient and com- 
petent to be denominated a sacrament. But if not, 
everything which we could possibly imagine, as I 
have said, might become a sacrament. ' ' 

Learned theologians say: " There is required for 
a sacrament (i) that it must be an act commanded 
by God; (2) it must have a visible element Divinely 
prescribed (united with the celestial object through 
the medium of the words of institution (Holl. 1054); 
(3) it must have the promise of evangelical grace. ' ' — 
{Schmid, p. 543.) 

Neither tried by this rule does Feet-washing hold 
as a divinely appointed sacrament. It has no words 
of institution ; it has no divine command, and it does 
not contain evangelical grace, or the pardon of sin. 
Therefore Feet- washing is no sacrament to be prac- 
ticed in the public assemblies of the Church. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED. 

We come now to inquire into the circumstances 
involved in the case of our Lord's washing- the dis- 
ciples' feet. This will involve two propositions: 

First. That this Feet-washing- took place at the 
celebration of the Jewish Legal Passover; 

Second. That Feet-washing- was a Jewish custom, 
long established before the occasion under consid- 
eration, and associated with the celebration of the 
Paschal Supper. 

It will require a g"ood deal of patient investigation 
to bring out the truth of these two propositions, but 
with their establishment the purported sacrament of 
Feet-washing falls to the ground, as in the former 
case. 

Firsts That this Feet-washing took place at the cele- 
bration of the Jewish Legal Passover.. In the discus- 
sion of this proposition we will have to show that 
this Feet-washing, mentioned in John xiii. 4-17, 
took place at the celebration of the Jewish Legal 
Passover. For this we: have the inspired testimony 
of three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke. 
Where, then, were Christ and Hi& disciples when 
( 203 >. 



204 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

the purported sacrament of Feet-washing was insti- 
tuted ? They were in Jerusalem, in a large upper 
room well furnished and prepared, celebrating the 
regular Jewish Passover. 

Matthew says : ' ' Now the first day of the feast of 
unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying 
unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for 
Thee to eat the passover? And He said, Go into 
the city to such a man and say unto him. The Mas- 
ter saith, My time is at hand ; I will keep the pass- 
over at thy house with My disciples. And the dis- 
ciples did as Jesus had appointed them, and they 
made ready the passover. Now when the even was 
come He sat down with the twelve," Matt. xxvi. 
17-20. 

Mark says: " And the first day of unleavened 
bread, when they killed the passover, His disciples 
said unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we go and 
prepare that Thou mayest eat the passover? And 
He sendeth forth two of His disciples, and saith unto 
them. Go ye into the city and there shall meet you 
a man bearing a pitcher of water : follow him. And 
wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the good man 
of the house, The Master saith. Where is the guest- 
chamber, where I shall eat the passover with My 
disciples ? And he will show you a large upper room 
furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. 
And His disciples went forth and came into the city 
and found as He had said unto them : and they made 
ready the passover. And in the evening He cometh 
with the twelve," Mark xiv. 12-17, 



THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED. 205 

Luke says: " Now the feast of unleavened bread 
drew nigh, which is called the passover. Then 
came the day of unleavened bread, when the pass- 
over must be killed. And He sent Peter and John, 
saying. Go and prepare us the passover, that we 
may eat. And they said unto Him, Where wilt 
Thou that we prepare ? And He said unto them, 
Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there 
shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water ; 
follow him into the house where he entereth in. 
And ye shall say unto the good man of the house, 
the Master saith unto thee. Where is the guestcham- 
ber, where I shall eat the passover with My disciples? 
And he shall show you a large upper room furnished : 
there make ready. And they went, and found as He 
had said unto them : and they made ready the pass- 
over. And when the hour was come He sat down, 
and the twelve apostles with Him," Luke xxii. 7-14. 

The day when the disciples came to Jesus and 
asked Him, * * Where wilt Thou that we go and pre- 
pare, that Thou mayest eat the passover? " was 
preparation day for the Paschal Supper, which was 
the 14th day of Nisan, the first month in the Jewish 
sacred year. This, according to Dr. Strong's Har- 
mony, was Christ's preparation for His fourth pass- 
over. It occurred on a Thursday. 

The last supper that Christ celebrated with His 
disciples, shortly before His death, was, therefore, 
according to the testimony of Matthew, Mark and 
Luke, the Jewish Legal Passover. Upon this divine 



206 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

testimony will we rest this argument, and the gates 
of Hell will not be able to overthrow it. 

Is it asked, what was the Jewish Legal Passover ? 
It was a feast ordained by God in commemoration of 
the miraculous deliverance of the children of Israel 
from the angel, who destroyed the first-bom in every 
Egyptian family, when he passed over the houses of 
the Israelites, on whose door-posts and lintels he 
discovered the blood of the Paschal Lamb, Ex. xii. 
1-8. 

According to this, the Paschal Lamb was slain on 
the evening of the 14th of the month Nisan. It must 
be remembered, in this connection, that the Jewish 
day commenced in the evening at 6 o'clock, accord- 
ing to our time of reckoning. 

The Paschal Lamb was regularly killed between 
the 9th and nth hour; that is, between 3 and 5 
o'clock, P. M., on the 14th of Nisan (Jos. B. J. 6, 9, 
3; Robinson's Greek Lex., p. 538). 

The Jews reckoned two evenings as marking the 
portion of the day during which the Paschal Lamb 
was to be killed, Ex. xii. 6 ; Lev. xxiii. 5 ; Num. ix. 
3, 5. According to these passages, the 14th of Nisan 
was really only the preparation, when the house- 
cleaning and the removing of the leaven took place ; 
and when the Paschal Lamb, unleavened bread, and 
the bitter herbs were prepared. 

The later Jews made some additions; in particular 
they drank at intervals during the Paschal Supper 
four cups of red wine usually mingled with one- 



THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED. 207 

fourth part of water. The third cup was called the 
cup of blessing, i Cor. x. i6; Comp. Matt. xxvi. 27. 

In the New Testament the passover is spoken of 
as the victim, the supper, and the festival. On this 
point Luke says: " Now the feast of unleavened 
bread drew nigh, which is called the passover," 
Luke xxii. i. So also Josephus: " Now, upon the 
approach of the feast of unleavened bread, which 
the law of their fathers had appointed for the Jews 
at this time, which feast is called the passover, ' ' etc. 
Jos. Antiq. xvii. 9, 3. 

This is a very important point to be remembered 
in this discussion ; for while the word passover liter- 
ally applies merely to the eating of the Paschal Lamb 
on the night of the 15th Nisan, which was really the 
first day of the feast of unleavened bread, yet the 
name, by way of accommodation, was applied to 
the whole feast, including the 14th, which was the 
day of preparation, and also the following seven 
days, making the feast eight days in all. This is 
also according to Josephus, where he says : "As 
now the war abroad ceased for a while, the sedition 
within was revived ; and on the feast of unleavened 
bread, which was now come, it being the fourteenth 
day of the month Xanthius (Nisan)," etc. ** They 
offered the sacrifice which is called the passover, on 
the fourteenth day of the same month (Nisan), and 
feasted seven days," etc. Again, ** Whence it is 
that, in memory of the want we were then in, we 
kept a feast for eight days, which is called the feast 
of unleavened bread, " Jos. A. J. 2, 15, i. 



208 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

These quotations from Luke and Josephus are 
sufficient to prove that the period of eight days, from 
the 14th of Nisan to the 21st of the same month, 
inclusive, was called the feast of unleavened bread ; 
and that the word passover, in a popular way, is 
applied to all . this time, while really the eating of 
the Paschal Lamb or the passover took place on the 
15th of Nisan. The Paschal Lamb was slain on the 
14th of Nisan, between 3 and 5 o'clock, toward the 
end of the Jewish day. The 14th of Nisan was a 
Thursday, Matt. xxvi. 17. " Now the first day of 
the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to 
Jesus, saying unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we 
prepare for Thee to eat the passover?" This was 
the day of preparation, which was properly reckoned 
in the feast of unleavened bread. On the evening 
of the 14th of Nisan at 6 o'clock, which was also the 
beginning of the 15 th of Nisan, came the feast of 
passover itself, when what was prepared was eaten. 

On the evening of that day, before 6 o'clock, and 
thus at the transition from the i4tn to the 15 th of 
Nisan, the Legal Passover was introduced with 
Feet-washing. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

FEET-WASHING A JEWISH CUSTOM. 

This brings us to the discussion of that other 
proposition: That Feet-washing was a Jewish cus- 
tom, long established before the occasion under con- 
sideration, and associated with the celebration of the 
Paschal Supper. 

The antiquity of Feet-washing as a Jewish custom 
is very easily established by the Scriptures, for the 
ancient people, in the warmer climates, wash their 
feet frequently. The custom grew out of the fitness 
of things. The people in those countries wore 
sandals. 

The sandal was at first a flat piece of wood or 
leather, suited to the sole of the foot, and bound 
upon it by straps or strings. The fastening was 
called a latchet. Christ and His disciples wore 
sandals. John the Baptist says of Christ, "Whose 
shoe's latchet I am unworthy to unloose,' John i. 
27. And Christ said to His twelve disciples, when 
He sent them forth to preach, " Be shod with san- 
dals." The sandal was easily stripped off, and it 
afforded no protection from the dust and dirt. San- 
dals were never worn in the house, as it was consid' 
ered a violation of good manners. 
14 (209) 



2IO BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

The necessity of washing the feet, therefore, after 
every walk, is obvious, and it was the first token of 
hospitality to supply water for this purpose. See 
with what generous hospitality Abraham, the father 
of the faithful, meets the three angels who visited 
him ! It is said : ' ' The Lord appeared unto him in 
the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent-door in 
the heat of the day ; and he lifted up his eyes and 
looked, and, lo, three men stood by him : and when 
he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent- 
door, and bowed himself to the ground and said. My 
Lord, if now I have found favor in Thy sight, pass 
not away, I pray Thee, from Thy servant : Let a lit- 
tle water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, 
and rest yourselves under the tree : and I will fetch 
a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; 
after that ye shall pass on; for therefore are ye 
come to your servant. And they said. So do, as 
thou hast said," Gen. xviii. 1-5. 

Here is genuine hospitality, which stands in 
marked contrast with that which the same Lord re- 
ceived in the house of Simon. " Jesus turned to the 
woman and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? 
I entered into thine house, thou gavest Me no water 
for My feet : but she hath washed My feet with tears, 
and wiped them with the hairs of her head," Luke 
vii. 44. 

In both these cases we perceive that Feet- washing 
was a mark of hospitality. To unloose the straps or 
latchets of the sandals was the business of a menial 



FEET-WASHING A JEWISH CUSTOM. 211 

or servant, as was also the washing- of feet. And 
this Feet-washing took place before eating, as we 
read in Judges xix. 21, "So he brought them into 
his house and gave provender unto their asses: and 
they washed their feet and did eat and drink." 
When David proposed to take Abigail to wife, it is 
said, * * She arose, and bowed herself on her face to 
the earth, and said, Behold, let thine handmaid be 
a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my 
Lord," I Sam. xxv, 41. So also in Mark i. 7, 
" There cometh One mightier than I after me, the 
latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop 
down and unloose. ' ' 

From these quotations we learn three things: (i) 
That the washing of feet was practiced from the 
time of Abraham to the time of Christ as a Jewish 
custom. (2) That it was a family custom practiced 
generally in the house in connection with the eating 
of a meal, and especially in connection with the eat- 
ing of the evening meal. (3) That the washing of 
the feet was the business of a menial or servant. 

We will now take up the second point of the propo- 
sition under consideration. It is this: That Feet- 
washing was an eastern usage connected with the 
celebration of the Jewish Legal Passover. We offer 
the following proof : 

I. Dr. Lange, in his Commentary on Matthew, 
says : * * On the first day of unleavened bread — that 
is, on the 14th of Nisan — the paschal feast, accord- 
ing to Matthew, was made, ready. On that day the 



212 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

leavened bread was removed. On the evening of 
that day, before 6 o'clock, and thus at the point of 
transition from the 14th to the 15 th, the legal pass- 
over was introduced by the Feet- washing. ' ' 

2. Dr. Neander, in his Life of Christ, says: 
* ' Peter, alarmed, cried out, ' Yea, if it be so, Lord^ 
not my feet only^ but also my hanels and my head. ' ' ' 
To this Christ replied: '* That is tea much: he that 
is washed {bathed) needetJi not saze to wash his feet, 
but is clean every whit.''' A figure taken from east- 
ern usage : he that is already bathed, need only, on 
coming in from the road, wash off the soil that may 
have gathered on his feet. ' ' 

3. Dr. Strong, in his Harmony, says: " There 
had just occurred an altercation among the disciples, 
as to which of them was entitled to the pre-eminence 
in rank. The dispute probably took place as they 
were taking their relative positions at the table, a 
point of great etiquette among orientals. Jesus 
therefore at this stage of the supper arose from the 
supper table with the design of checking this am- 
bitious spirit in His apostles by a last emphatic act 
of authority, and laying aside His upper garments, 
He took a towel and wound it around His waist, in 
the manner of a servant preparing to wait upon the 
company then in order of performing the ablution 
connected with the paschal meal. ' ' 

4. It has already been proved that Feet-washing 
was an eastern usage practiced at ordinary meals 
among the Jews. But the Jewish Legal Passover took 



FEET-WASHING A JEWISH CUSTOM. 213 

the place of the ordinary supper on the 15th of Nisan. 
Therefore, if Feet-washing was practiced at ordinary 
suppers, it was also most assuredly practiced, ac- 
cording to the teaching of Lange, Neander and 
Strong, at the celebration of the Jewish Passover. 
But Christ ate the regular passover with His disci- 
ples, and found Feet-washing already established as 
a Jewish custom, and did not then and there ordain 
Feet-washing as a sacrament of His Church. 

The practice of Feet-washing, as noticed in the 
Scriptures, was nothing but a Jewish custom, result- 
ing from the nature of things. It is well known that 
the Holy Scriptures were written in the east, and 
they have come to us in all their primitive, native 
simplicity; so that they, although translated, carry 
with them, more or less, the nature and style of the 
languages then spoken : and many of the expressions 
have reference to the climate varying from ours; 
customs and manners of a people differing greatly 
from us. To have then a correct view^ of Feet- wash- 
ing, we must, (i) be made acquainted with the facts 
that the climate in that country is warm ; that it 
rarely rains during the summer, which lasts six 
months ; and hence the roads become very dry and 
dusty ; that there is no spring nor fall, and that dur- 
ing the remainder of the year it mostly rains, which 
is their winter. (2) That the shoes worn are san- 
dals, or soles without uppers, tied to the feet, and 
these are worn without stockings. Thus, then, we 
can readily imagine the state and condition of the 



214 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

feet under such usage. It is proved, therefore, 
that Feet-washing was only a Jewish custom, prac- 
ticed without any previous legislation from heaven, 
and without any special reference to religion, except 
as a mark of hospitality (i Tim. v. lo) and as clean- 
liness is a part of godliness. 

In this connection it seems proper and necessary 
that we should consider more minutely the celebra- 
tion of the Jewish Legal Passover, with which we 
have shown Feet-washing to have been combined as 
a Jewish custom. 

The company at table might not be less than ten 
persons (Josephus Bell. Jud. 6, 9, 3). It generally 
included from ten to twenty, according to the fam- 
ily, or as enlarged by strangers. The rites of the 
feast were regulated by the succession of cups, filled 
with red wine, commonly mixed with water. 

1. Announcement of the feast. The head of the 
house uttered the thanksgiving or benediction over 
the wine and the feast, drinking the first cup. Then 
followed the remainder of the household. Then the 
washing of hands and feet after praise. 

2. They then ate the bitter herbs, dipped in vine- 
gar or salt-water, in remembrance of the sorrows 
which their fathers underwent in Egypt. Mean- 
while the paschal dishes were brought in — the well- 
seasoned broth, the unleavened loaves, the festal 
offerings and the lamb. All these were then ex- 
plained. They sung the first part of the Hallel, or 
song of praise, Ps. 113; Ps. 114; and the second cup 
was drunk. 



FEET-WASHING A JEWISH CUSTOM. 215 

3. Then began the feast proper (at which they re- 
clined) : the householder took two loaves, broke one in 
two, laid it npon the whole loaf, blessed it, wrapped 
it with bitter herbs, dipped it, ate of it, and handed 
it around with the words : ' ' This is the bread of 
affliction, which your father's ate in Egypt." He 
then blessed the Paschal Lamb, and ate of it ; the 
festal offerings were eaten with the bread dipped in 
the broth ; and finally the lamb. The thanksgiving 
for the meal followed the blessing and drinking of 
the third cup. 

4. The remainder of the Hallel was sung, Ps. 115 ; 
118; and the fourth cup was drunk. Occasionally a 
fifth cup followed, while Ps. 120 and Ps. 127 were 
pronounced, but no more. 

The first cup was thus devoted to the announce- 
ment of the feast ; and Luke tells us that with this 
cup Christ announced to the disciples that this was 
the last feast He would celebrate with them in the 
world, and that He would celebrate a new feast with 
them in His Father's kingdom. The second cup was 
devoted to the interpretation of the festal act. The 
third cup followed the breaking of the loaves, which 
celebrated the unleavened bread, and was the cup 
of thanksgiving: this the Lord consecrated as the 
cup of the New Testament, as He had consecrated 
the breaking of bread as the remembrance of His 
broken body, the bread of life. 

Let us now turn to the last legal paschal meal, 
that Jesus celebrated, according to the testimony of 



2l6 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

Matthew, Mark and Luke, with His disciples, with 
some of the connecting events and discourses. We 
will follow Dr. Strong's " Harmony and Expositions 
of the Gospels. ' ' 

"And in the evening " (Mark xiv. 17 ; Matt. xxvi. 
20) " when the hour was come, He sat down and the 
twelve apostles were with Him," Luke xxii. 14. 

What evening does Mark refer to and what hour does 
Luke mean ? There is but one evening, which Mark 
can mean, and that was the evening of the same day 
that Jesus sent Peter and John to Jerusalem to pre- 
pare the passover, according to the Synoptists. But 
that day we have conclusively proved to have been 
the 14th of Nisan, which was a Thursda}^, toward the 
end of which the Paschal Lamb was killed. Toward 
that evening (Thursday), Jesus accompanied by His 
twelve apostles, set out from Bethany for the city of 
Jerusalem, and at the usual hour of the Paschal 
Supper, at six o'clock, the termination of the 14th of 
Nisan, and the beginning of the 15th of Nisan, soon 
after dark, took His place at the table thus prepared, 
surrounded by the entire number of His apostles. 
This is meant by the evening and the hour^ men- 
tioned by Mark and Luke, respectively. 

There is another phrase, which must be settled by 
a reference to the Greek Testament, and that is, 
''Sat down.'' Jesus and His disciples did not sit at 
table, after the modem fashion, but they reclined at 
table. The literal meaning of anapipto is to recline 
at table. This is the word which Luke uses ; but 



FEET-WASHING A JEWISH CUSTOM. 217 

Matthew uses anakeimai^ which also means to be in a 
recumbent posture^ to recline at table. 

Dr. Lange, on Matt. xxvi. 20, has the following: 
''He reclined at table.'' According to the ancient 
custom of reclining at the table, with the left hand 
resting upon the couch. It is remarkable that the 
Jews themselves ventured to modify the legal pre- 
scription, which required them to eat the passover 
standijig, with staff in hand, Ex. xii. 11. It does 
not appear that the directions given in this verse 
were held to be binding in the subsequent observ- 
ance of the paschal rite. It is clear, at least that our 
Saviour and His apostles celebrated the passover in 
a recumbent posture, denoting ease and security, the 
contrary of the urgent haste of the Israelites on this 
occasion. ' ' 

Dr. Schaff adds: ** Dr. Wardsworth makes a lib- 
eral remark which is doubly to be appreciated as 
coming from a strict Episcopalian : * God has com- 
manded the attitude of standing in the reception of 
the paschal meal; the Jewish Church having come 
to the land of promise, and being there at rest^ re- 
clined at the festival, and our Lord conformed to 
that practice, a proof that positive commands of a 
ceremonial kind, even of divine origin, are not im- 
mutable if they are not in order to a permanent end. ' ' ' 

It was, therefore, immediately before the eating 
of the passover, just as the Paschal Supper was 
served up, or, as we would say, made ready, as Jesus 
and His disciples were already reclining at the table, 



2l8 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

when Jesus uttered these words: "With desire I 
have desired to eat this passover with you before I 
suffer ; for I say unto you, I will not any more eat 
thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 
And He took the cup and gave thanks, and said, 
Take this, and divide it among yourselves," Luke 
xxii. 15-17. Here commenced the announcement of 
the feast. This cup was the first cup of the paschal 
feast. After this followed praise, and the washing 
of hands and feet. 

There had just occurred an altercation among His 
disciples, as to which of them was entitled to pre- 
eminence in rank. Luke gives it thus : ' * And there 
was also a strife among them, which of them should 
be accounted greatest. ' ' This dispute probably took 
place as they were taking their relative position at 
the table, a point of great etiquette among the ori- 
entals. On this Olshausen says : "At this point 
arose no doubt the strife, which occasioned the 
Feet-washing by the Saviour. This happened as 
manifest from John xiii. 4, compared with verse 
12th, after they had sat down to the meal, and dur- 
ing the presence of Judas. So that the Saviour 
must have washed His very betrayer's feet, which 
renders His humility more striking. The contention 
arose concerning their several places at the table. 
See verse 27th, " But I am among you as He that 
serveth. ' ' Ewald, on this point says : ' * Luke here 
puts together (verses 2 1-2 8) a number of expressions 
of Jesus which, according to Matthew and Mark, are 



FEET-WASHING A JEWISH CUSTOM. 219 

Spoken partly earlier and partly later, as if this sub- 
lime point of history were peculiarly adapted for 
attaching to the words of institution of the Holy 
Supper, similar thoughts respecting the faithfulness 
of the disciples toward Him. ' ' 

This leads us in regular order to John xiii. 1-15: 
* 'Now before the feast of passover. ' ' This is a phrase 
whose exact import is quite important in the settle- 
ment of this controversy. Some have interpreted 
this to mean a whole day before the passover ; and it 
is one of the slender points on which the advocates 
for another feast than the passover build their the- 
ory. But by an examination of the Greek herein 
employed, no day appears. The Greek of the 
phrase is simply this : * 'Pro de tes heortes tou pascha^ * ' 
' 'But before the feast of the passover. ' ' By what rule 
can a phrase, expressing indefinite time be made to 
mean the definite time of a day ? The feast began 
about 6 o'clock, according to our time, and it would 
be very strange if the expression, "Before the feast, 
must be made to raean ' ' a day before. ' ' It would 
be much nearer, according to the Greek, to say, 
"just before'' or "shortly before.'' W. Baumlein, 
one of the latest commentators on John's Gospel, 
explains the phrase, ''Unmittelbar vor dem Pas- 
chafeste," i. e., " immediately before the passover." 

"And supper being ended" v. 2. "Being ended" 
means occurring or taking place. The end of prepar- 
ing it had arrived. The Greek for this is: " Kai 
deipnou genomenou, ' ' which is thus translated by the 



220 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

best critics: Stier and Theile say, ' ' Als das Abend- 
fnahl vorhanden^ " ''''as the Supper was at hand or pre- 
pared.'' Berlenberg-er Bible says, '"Da das Abend- 
mahl warden^ " * * while the Supper was occurring. ' ' 
Stoltz, ' 'A Is das Mahlzeit bereitet war^ " '''-as the Sup- 
per was prepared. ' ' Schotz, * * Wahrend Sie bei dein 
A bendmahl Satzen, " " while they were reclining at the 
Supper. * ' De Wette, * 'A Is das A bendmahl anfing^ ' ' 
' ' as the Supper was commencing. * ' 

Jesus, therefore, at this stage of the feast, con- 
scious of the responsible mission which His Heavenly 
Father had placed in His hands, with the design of 
checking this ambitious spirit of His apostles by a 
last emphatic act of authority, arose from the couch, 
and laying aside His upper garment, He took a 
towel and wound it around His waist, in the man- 
ner of a servant preparing to wait on company in 
the ceremony then in order of performing the ablu- 
tion connected with the paschal meal. 

In order to get a comprehensive view of this sub- 
ject, we must compare Luke xxii. 24-30 with John 
xiii. 1-20. It appears from this that there was yet 
one Jewish custom unperformed before the passover 
could be eaten, and that was the washing of the 
feet, which had again become soiled in coming in 
from the bath. Who was to perform this menial 
service ? Some one of the apostles ought to have 
performed it, as Christ told them afterwards; but 
their pride for pre-eminence would allow no one of 
them to undertake the service. Jesus waited and 



FEET-WASHING A JEWISH CUSTOM. 22 1 

the Supper was now ready, " served up," but none 
of His disciples moved to undertake this custom of 
washing the feet. Then Jesus arose, and took the 
place of a servant, and performed the menial work 
of washing the feet of His disciples. This act of 
Jesus completely subdued this ambitious spirit of 
His disciples, all which is gathered from the pas- 
sages cited. 

We come now to the third point: That Feet- 
washing was not practiced in the Apostolic Church 
as a Christian sacrament. 

In the Acts of the Apostles we have a special his- 
tory written for our guidance in these matters, but 
nothing is said in it of Feet-washing as a Christian 
sacrament to be observed in the public assemblies of 
the Church. Now, the apostles were either true to 
their commission or they were not. The Commis- 
sion was this : ' * Go ye, therefore^ and make disci- 
ples of all nations," etc. Matt, xxviii. 19-20. But 
as Feet- washing is not mentioned among the sacra- 
ments in the Acts of the Apostles^ therefore it could 
not have been in the Commission, or the apostles were 
not faithful even under the guidance of the Holy 
Spirit. But such a position is absurd. They could 
not err in this matter, for the Lord was dwelling in 
them by His Spirit. 

I Tim. V. 9-10 is sometimes quoted in proof of 
Feet- washing ; but any one can see that there is no 
allusion to Feet-washing as a Christian sacrament to 
be practiced in the public assemblies, of the Church. 



222 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHTNG. 

It is mentioned here only as a mark of Christian 
hospitality. A widow, who had not shown Christian 
hospitality in this way to the saints, was unworthy to 
be taken into the number of those who were widows 
indeed. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

THE TRUE DATE OF THE PASSOVER. 

The position of our opponents, to the views which 
have been set forth in the preceding discussion, is, 
that the meal mentioned in John xiii., which they 
say was no proper passover, took place on the 13th 
of Nisan. 

But this is untenable, because Matthew, Mark and 
Luke expressly describe the Lord's meal as a pass- 
over celebrated at the legal time. Matt. xxvi. 17 
says : * ' Now the first day of the feast of unleavened 
bread," etc. On the 14th of Nisan the leaven was 
removed, and the unleavened loaves took their place. 
It was the first day of unleavened bread, forming 
the foundation of the passover, which really did not 
begin until the 15th of Nisan. But the feast was 
reckoned to last eight days, as we have seen by 
Josephus: *' Whence it is that, in memory of the 
want we were then in, we keep a feast for eight days, 
which is called the feast of unleavened bread. ' ' These 
words, according to Matthew and Josephus, are ex- 
press against the ancient notion that Jesus celebrated 
the passover a day earlier. 

Dr. Schaff , on this point, says : ' ' 7> de prote ton 
(223) 



2 24 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

azuinon {Now the first day of the feast of unleavened 
bread) are equivalent to the first day of the pass- 
over, and important to the settlement of the chrono- 
logical difficulty. All are agreed that this was 
Thursday, since Christ died on Friday. But the 
question is as to the day of the month, viz., whether 
it was the 14th of Nisan, at the close of which the 
Passover Lamb was slain, as Dr. Lange, Wieseler, 
Hengstenberg, Baumlein, Andrews, and most mod- 
em commentators of this passage assert ; or the 1 3th 
of Nisan, according to the view of the Greek Church 
and those commentators who, from a different point 
of view, try to harmonize the Synoptists with John. 
Had we no other guide in this matter than the Syn- 
optists, every commentator would probably adopt 
the former view, for the following reasons : 

I. It is the obvious meaning of the term used by all 
the Synoptists : ' * the first day of unleavened breads ' ' 
especially if we compare Mark, who characterizes the 
day more fully by adding : * ' When they killed the 
passover {i. ^., here the Paschal Lamb)," and Luke, 
who says in equally clear terms : ' ' When the pass- 
over must be killed. ' ' 

It was toward the close of the 14th of Nisan (prob- 
ably from 3 o'clock till dark, Deut. xvi. 6), that the 
Paschal Lamb was slain, and all preparations were 
made for the feast which began with the Paschal 
Supper at evening, i. e.^ at the close of the 14th of 
Nisan and the beginning of the 15th of Nisan, which 
day was, strictly speaking, the first day of the feast, 



THE TRUE DATE OF THE PASSOVER. 225 

although in popular language, the 14th was called 
the first day of the passover or of unleavened bread. 
See Ex. xii. 18: "In the first month (Nisan), on the 
14th day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleav- 
ened bread until the one and twentieth day of the 
month at even." Comp. Lev. xxiii. 5; Num. 
xxviii. 16. 

Dr. Robinson (Harm. p. 214) says: " The lan- 
guage of the Synoptists is full, explicit, and decided, 
to the effect that our Lord's last meal with His dis- 
ciples was the regular and ordinary Paschal Supper 
of the Jews, introducing the festival of unleavened 
bread on the evening of the 14th of Nisan." 

With this compare Meyer in loco : " Es is der 14. 
Nisan (nach den Synoptikern, Donnerstag) gemeint, 
mit dessen abend das Passah begann welcher aber 
schon ganz unter den Festagen mittgezalt ist, nach 
der popular ungenauen weise, in welcher auch Jo- 
sephus, Antiq. 2, 15, i, acht Festage Zahlt. " 

2. It is very improbable that Christ, who came 
not to destroy but to fulfil, should have violated the 
legal time of the passover; and if He did so, we 
should have some intimation of the fact in the Gos- 
pel, Matt. V. 17. 

I. An anticipatory ssicvi^ce of the Paschal Lamb in 
the court of the temple, on the 13th of Nisan, a day 
before the legal time, would not have been permitted 
by the priests. Greswell quotes from Philo to the 
effect that each man was then his own priest, and 
could slay the lamb in his own dwelling. But the 
15 



226 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

weight of authority goes to show that the lamb must 
be slain in the temple and the blood sprinkled upon 
the altar, Deut. xvi. 5, 6; Ezra vi. 20; 2 Chron. 
XXXV. II. Hence the Jews, since the destruction of 
the temple, have only a memorial passover, confined 
to the use of unleavened bread and bitter herbs with 
the usual Psalms and prayer. The difficulty then 
arises not from the plain statement of the Synoptists, 
but from certain passages in John which seem to 
contradict the former, and from the apparent proba- 
bility that Christ should have been tried, condemned, 
and crucified on the 15th of Nisan, which was the 
most solemn day of the passover festival. 



CHAPTER XX. 

JOHN AND SYNOPTISTS HARMONIZED. 

1. The Legal Passover was introduced by Feet- 
Washing-. (See Dr. Lange on Matt., p. 455.) This 
explains the representation of John xiii. 1-4: "Be- 
fore the feast of the passover, Jesus arise th from 
supper (the legal Paschal Supper) and layeth aside 
His garments. ' ' (That is, to perform the washing 
of feet). The feast itself began about 6 o'clock, and 
it would be very strange if the expression, * ' before 
the feast, ' ' must be made to mean * * a day before. * ' 
It would be much nearer to say, ' 'Now immediately 
before the passover, ' ' etc. 

2. In John xiii. 27, Jesus said to Judas, '''■That thou 
doest^ do quickly; ' ' and some present thought he was 
commanded to go at once, before the opening of the 
feast, and buy what provisions were necessary to it. 
But they could not possibly have entertained such a 
thought, if the whole of the next day had been open 
to them for the purpose ; although it was a very nat- 
ural one if the time allowed for secular purposes was 
fast drawing to a close. 

3. John xviii. 28, narrates that the Jews, on the 
imoming of the crucifixion, might not enter with 

(227) 



228 BAPTISM AND FEET WASHING. 

Jesus into the Praetorium, * ' lest they should be de- 
filed, but that they might eat the passover. ' ' Since the 
defilement occasioned by entering a Gentile house 
lasted only one day, they might very well have gone 
into the Praetorium, and yet eat the passover after 
six o'clock; for the defilement would cease after six 
o'clock in the evening. 

But, if they had eaten the Passover the evening 
before, they could not have entered the hall on the 
morning of the 15th of Nisan, lest they should dese- 
crate the paschal feast upon which they had just en- 
tered. John here uses the ordinary and common 
expression, in the brief form, * ' To eat the passover. ' * 
We have already proved from Luke and Josephus 
that the term passover covers the whole feast of un- 
leavened bread, from the 14th to the 21st of Nisan, 
inclusive. Andrews says, that John in six out of nine 
times in which he uses the word pascha^ applies it to 
the feast generally ; that he, writing last of all the 
evangelists, speaks of Jewish rites independently as 
of things now superseded ; that therefore * ' to eat the 
passover, ' ' might very well be used with reference 
to the sacrifices which followed the Paschal Supper 
on the 14th of Nisan. 

4. The Jews urged (John xix. 31) on the burial of 
the crucified, that it should be done on Friday, the 
15th of Nisan, which was the preparation for the 
coming Sabbath, as that Sabbath was a high day. 

Wieseler says : ' * The day of preparation, paras- 
keue, does not signify before the passover, but the 
preparation before the first Sabbath of the passover. 



JOHN AND SYNOPTISTS HARMONIZED. 229 

To the Jews, the Friday was the eve of the Sab- 
bath, or the day of preparation for the Sabbath ; and 
if the passover chanced to begin on Friday, the next 
Saturday or Sabbath became a high day, the great 
day of the feast. ' ' 

The term, paraskeue^ preparation^ occurs six times 
in the gospel (Matt, xxvii. 62 ; Mark xv. 42 ; Luke 
xxiii. 54; John xix. 14, 31, 42), and in all these cases 
it viiQ2cns prosabbaton^ " the day before the Sabbath," 
as Mark xv. 42 expressly explains it. 

Hence, paraskeue, preparation^ is equivalent to 
Friday, and is so rendered in Syriac, according to 
Dr. Lange. The Jews observed Friday afternoon 
from three o'clock as the time for preparation for 
the Sabbath, which commenced at sunset (Jos. , An- 
tiq. 16, 2, i). 

5. The only difficulty is with John xix. 14: "It 
was the paraskeue^ the preparation of the passover. ' ' 
But if paraskeue becomes the usual term for Friday, 
the phrase must mean the Friday of the passover^ 
i. e. , the paschal week, according to the wider use of 
pascha in John. Campbell translates it : " Now it 
was the preparation of the paschal Sabbath. ' ' 

Other reasons alleged in favor of the supposed differ- 
ence of the days are these : 

I. ''Impossibility of an executio7i on a feast day.'' 

Against this, according to Dr. Lange, we have 
Rabbi Akiba: " Great transgressors were taken to 
Jerusalem, in order that they might be put to death 
at the feast, before the eyes of the people, Deut. xvii. 
12, 13. Executions had a religious character. " 



230 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

They were symbols of judgraent for warning and 
edification. Sad analogies are the Spanish auto da 
fes, as popular religious festivals. 

To this may be added that the Jews attempted 
several times to sieze Jesus on the Sabbath or festi- 
val days, Luke iv. 26, 29 (on a Sabbath) ; John vii. 
30, 32 (in the midst of the feast of tabernacles) ; vii. 
37, 44, 45 (on the last day of the feast); x. 22, 39 
(at the feast of dedication). 

2. *'The women prepared their spices on the day of 
Jesus' death.'' 

But we answer that on the mere feast days (not 
Sabbaths) spices might be prepared, and other things 
might be done (Lev. xxiii. 7, 8). 

3. * ' The Synoptists as well as John describe the 
day of Christ's death as paraskeue and prosabbaton." 
We reply that the second of these terms simply 
proves the day to have been Friday. 

Thus all the evidence brought forward to support 
the theory of a difference in the days, may be used 
on the opposite side. 

In addition to this we must urge the following posi- 
tive reasons in favor of our view : 

1. It cannot be conceived that Jesus, led always 
by the Father through the path of legal ordinances, 
w^ould celebrate the paschal feast a day before the 
time, and thereby voluntarily hasten His own death. 
See under this head Gal. iv. 4, 5. 

2. Pilate released a prisoner to the Jews en to pas- 
cha, at the passover, John xviii. 39. 



JOHN AND SYNOPTISTS HARMONIZED. 23 1 

3. John, according to the testimony of the Quarto- 
decimans of the Easter controversy, kept the feast on 
the evening of the 14th of Nisan, and therefore the 
same time with the Jews. 

4. The argument used by the Fathers Clemens, 
Hippolitus, against the Quartodeciinans^ (the Four- 
teeners: that is, those who commemorated the 
Lord's death on the 14th of Nisan), that Jesus died 
on the legal day of the passover, because He was the 
real Passover^ may be made to support the claims 
of the 15th of Nisan, although there is an evident 
confusion among these fathers in the counting of the 
days, and too much stress is laid on the fact that the 
Paschal Lamb was slain on the 14th of Nisan. 

If Jesus died on the 15th of Nisan, He died on the 
day of the * ' legal ' ' passover, for that day began at 
six o'clock at the end of the 14th of Nisan. If, on 
the other hand, it was three o'clock in the afternoon 
of the 14th of Nisan that He died, it would have 
been one day before the legal paschal day, which did 
not begin till six o'clock. Neglect of the difference 
between the Jewish and the Roman time (and our 
own) of reckoning from midnight has tended much 
to confuse this matter. ' ' — Dr. Schaff. 

Three prominent thoughts or rather facts stand 
out in this investigation: (i) The Legal Jewish Pass- 
over; (2) Feet- washing, a Jewish custom associated 
with the Legal Passover ; and (3) the institution of 
the Lord's Supper, or communion. But the Jewish 
dispensation having passed away, all that belongs to 



232 BAPTISM AND FEET-WASHING. 

the Legal Passover, as Feet-washing, etc., has also 
fallen away, and nothing remains but the Lord's Sup- 
per, or the Holy Communion, the only sacrament in- 
stituted at the time of the celebration of the Legal 
Passover by Christ and His disciples. 

Feet-washing, therefore, has no claims whatever 
to be called a Christian sacrament, to be practiced 
by us Christians in the public assemblies of the 
Church. 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date Sept 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 ■momson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779 2111 



V 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 665 084 3 




